UAP article in Frontiers in Earth Science Journal

Hi all,

A very interesting article has appeared in a recent issue of "Frontiers in Earth Science Journal." The title of the article is "To investigate or not to investigate? Researchers' views on unexplained atmospheric light phenomena."

The joint authors are:

1. Etienne Caron; Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.



Etienne Caron

2. Pouya Faridi; Department of Phytopharmaceuticals, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran.

Pouya Faridi

 

Introduction

 

In the introduction, the authors note that "Rare and unusual atmospheric lights have been reported in the Valley of Hessdalen (HL) in Norway for over a century..." Their characteristics include a "...free floating light ball with dimensions ranging from decimetres up to 30m..." These lights are accompanied by 'spikes' in HF and VLF frequencies; have an absolute luminosity about 19kw; and can be seen for durations ranging from seconds to hours.

 

The authors point out that these lights differ from ball lightning; blue jets; red sprites and terrestrial gamma-ray flashes.

 

It is noted that the academic community has paid little attention to these and other examples of such lights, with one reason being "...the misleading association of HL with the controversial 'unidentified flying object (UFO)' phenomena, an association that has nevertheless been disproven by the referred-to frequent, rigorous observation of the phenomena."

 

 

Survey

 

The authors conducted an online survey by asking "...are researchers within the academic community interested in understanding the nature and origin of unexplained and/or poorly understood luminous phenomena occurring in the low atmosphere such as HL? More precisely we asked whether or not funding agencies (public and/or private) and universities should seriously support rigorous scientific investigation of UAP that have been traditionally been neglected by the academic community?"

 

A survey was sent to 6,049 researchers who were "...past or current beneficiaries of funding from the European Commission" in 90 countries. Emails invited them "...to read a  short article titled 'Scientific investigation on UAP' before responding anonymously."

 

The return rate was about 5 %, compared to an average online survey response of about 51%.

 

Results

 

58% of respondents "...think that research on UAP should not be neglected and should be supported by funding agencies...In addition, 52% of respondents would like to contribute to a better understanding of UAP if they could see a way to do it."

 

 

The way forward

 

The authors suggest that "...new, state-of-the-art automated stations continuously recording data will also be instrumental for measuring the phenomena."

 

 

Conclusion

 

"In the 80's, HL were defined as "UFOs" and were rejected by most scientists. Thanks to the scientific method and the pioneering work of Erling P Strand, the atmospheric light anomaly observed in the Valley of Hessdalen in Norway is now slowly gaining the attention of the scientific community and the respect of Academic journals...we propose that further investigation in UAP/HL through sustained amount of stable and long-term funding could lead to scientific breakthrough, advance the field of photonics, and thereby contribute to solving key related societal challenges, such as energy generation and energy efficiency, healthy ageing of the population , climate change and security."

 

Citation:

 

Caron, E and Faridi, P. (2016.) "To investigate or not to investigate? Researchers' views on unexplained atmospheric light phenomena." Front. Earth Sci. 4:17. doi10.3389/feart.2016.00017.

 

The complete article may be read here.

To view a 2014 presentation, on Hessdalen, for GEIPAN, by Erling P Strand, click here.



 





New book alert - "The Compelling Scientific Evidence for UFOs."

Hi all,

Introduction

I found an excellent new book, titled "The Compelling Scientific Evidence for UFOs: An Analysis of the Delphos, Kansas UFO Landing Report" (made in the USA Lexington, KY, 16 October 2015; ISBN 978-1502 715 524), by Dr Erol A Faruk, on Amazon Books.

Front cover image courtesy of Amazon Books


The author

The "About the author" section, tells us that Faruk has a BSc (Hons) in chemistry; and a PhD in chemistry. He is a British born scientist, and his PhD thesis was on "...the organic synthesis of unstable carotenoid..." He is now a retired pharmaceutical development chemist. An early interest in Astronomy "...indirectly led to his curiosity into the UFO phenomenon."

The case

At about 1900hrs on 2 November 1971, in Delphos, Kansas, USA, a 16 year old boy named Ronald Johnson reported seeing an illuminated object near the ground, about 75 feet away from him. He estimated the dimensions of the object as 9 feet in diameter and 10 feet high.

A rumbling noise was also audible at that point. After a while, the object departed. Ronald went to his parents and the three of them all observed a bright object, to the south, receding into the distance. A glowing ring of soil was noted where the object had been.

The family reported the incident to the local sheriff and samples and photographs were taken.

Investigation

UFO investigator Ted Phillips visited the site about one month later, and took samples and photographs. A number of analyses were conducted by various groups, with a range of findings. Faruk notes "Unfortunately, because of lack of sufficient funding and resources none of these laboratories were able to offer any clues as to the nature of the chemical changes that had arisen to cause the ring soil absorption anomalies."

Later, Faruk contacted the US Center for UFO Studies, and through them located Ted Phillips. Phillips "...duly sent me several grams of the material held within airtight opaque containers..." (p.3.)

His analysis

The book is in two parts, firstly an overview of the UFO phenomenon; followed by Faruk's analytical methodology; and findings. This second part, is full of technical details, but Faruk, however, also provides a basic level description of his findings.

Phyllis Budinger

In 1990, Faruk worked with another analysis, Phyllis Budinger, who conducted an independent analysis of more of the original soil sample. Her interesting results are discussed by Faruk. To read her full report click here.

Publication

Faruk attempted to get a paper about the case and the analytical findings, in a number of peer reviewed scientific journals. Unfortunately he was ultimately unsuccessful. His description of this process is illuminating.

In summary

For those who have followed this case, and analysis of soil samples, you may not find much new material here in this book. However, what is invaluable is to have all this material in one place.

I recommend this book, to anyone interested in the physical evidence aspects of the phenomenon. 

French and Chilean government UAP investigators meet

Hi all,

I have been a little busy lately with establishing the monthly Australian national level reports listings, with the assistance of all the major UAP groups in this country. (Click here for the November listing.)

This post gets back to other matters. In August and September of this year, I ran a series of blog posts about a number of scientific organisations which had held symposia on UAP; and several papers from the July 2014, Paris, GEIPAN (click here) workshop.

GEIPAN:

The other day, while browsing the GEIPAN website (click here) I noticed some information about another recent meeting of interest to us. I present the text of the item on the site, translated from French to English through Google translate.

"CEFFA, Fenomenos de Committee Aereos Anomalos is a service of Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil (DGAC) of Chile, whose mission is the study of PAN, mainly those observed by the pilots. As GEIPAN is one of the few civil official agencies in charge of the study of the PAN.

Thursday October 30, 2014 at CNES headquarters in Paris, General Ricardo Bermundez, director of CEFFA  met with the head of GEIPAN and certain members of  its steering committee and its panel of experts.

This first meeting allowed the leaders of the two organizations to better understand their respective activities and consider the exchange of information on methods and tools."

Please take a look at the CEFFA website (click here.) For further information about General Bermundez (click here.)

UAP - Investigation tools

Hi all,

When investigating UAP reports, besides on-site interviews, I use a number of readily available tools. A number of people have asked me to publish details, in order that they may also use them, so here they are.


Webtrak:

This website, click here, run by Air Services Australia, allows you to view a secondary radar derived map, showing the location of aircraft near the main Australian airports. You can view an area up to 50 kilometres from these selected airports, to an altitude of 30,000 feet. Only aircraft carrying a transponder (click here) show on the map. For each aircraft, you can find details such as its flight number, originating airfield and destination airfield, and its moment to moment height, plus the type of plane. You can check timewise, from 40 minutes in the past, to three months in the past.

My suggestion is, that for every UAP report that comes in, that you use Webtrak to determine if any aircraft match the position and movement of the UAP.


Sky charts:

There are several astronomical sky charts available on the net, e.g. Sky View Cafe, (click here) or Fourmilab (click here.) These provide locations of the Sun, the Moon, the planets and bright stars, for any date, time and geographic location.

The use of a sky chart will enable you to compare the location in the sky of any UAP to Sun, Moon, planets and stars. If day time, a UAP 22 degrees from the Sun could be a "sun dog" (click here); 22 degrees from the Moon could indicate a partial lunar halo. If the planet Venus is in the morning/evening sky, and the witness does not report seeing both the UAP and Venus, then the UAP could actually be Venus.

A sky chart can also be used to determine the time of sunrise/sunset and moonrise/moonset for any geographical location.


24 hour radar:

This website (click here) allows you to track aircraft movements at any time, at any location on earth, provided they are using a transponder. Again, as with Webtrak, you can compare UAP details with aircraft details.


Weather data:

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology website (click here) allows you access to weather data from hundreds of locations around Australia. Details available on a daily basis, going back 14 months, include wind direction, wind speed, cloud cover percentage, and temperatures. All for free. If you want to go back further than 14 months you can do so, but there is a fee for this service.

Wind direction might, of course, suggest that the UAP was a wind blown object, e.g. a hot air garbage bag balloon. If the witness tells you the sky was clear when they saw a UAP yet your check of the Bureau site tells you the sky was totally overcast, then you might start to think there is an issue with your witness' information.


Primary radar data:

Secondary radar imaging, such as from Webtrak, only shows information from aircraft which have transponders onboard, radiating a signal which is picked by by secondary radar. Primary radar however, shows anything which reflects a transmitted radar signal. Primary radar is what the RAAF uses. However, to obtain copies of this data, you will need to submit a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Defence. The RAAF appears to recycle its radar data every 30 days, so you need to be quick to receive this type of radar data. You might also consider submitting an FOI to Air Services Australia seeking primary radar data, if they have it, for the nearest airport to the UAP location.


Newspapers:

If you have one UAP observation from a location, there may be other unreported observations. To ascertain this, I often check the web for the nearest local newspaper to the UAP location, and check the digitised copy of the relevant newspaper for further sightings. If I find none, then I might email the newspaper seeking any reader who may also have sighted the UAP and ask them for details.


The net itself:

If I receive a UAP sighting from say, Burra, South Australia on 29 November 2013, I will use an internet search engine using Burra, and the date as keywords, to see if I can find additional sightings on the net, or possible explanations.


Historical reports:

If you are looking into an historical report, your nearest State Library is an excellent resource. It has accessible newspapers, and often runs of old magazines published by UAP groups. Old newspapers can provide daily weather details, often far cheaper than going through the Bureau of Meteorology. Rare, or hard to find copies of UAP books are also often held by State Libraries.

The National Archives of Australia and the National Library of Australia are also sources of files, photographs, old newspaper clippings and other reference material.

State Libraries also hold hard copies of old electoral rolls, up to about the year 2011. If you are trying to locate witnesses to old cases. I have successfully located individuals associated with cases as far back as 1965!


In summary:

The above, are a few of the numerous electronic and hard copy means of assisting investigating a UAP case. However, they are only additional means. There is nothing like the old fashioned on-site interview with a reporter, where they can show you the trajectory of the UAP across the landscape where you are standing.

If blog readers know of other Australian resources, I would be delighted to hear from you.

The Australian Desert Fireball Network and other instrumented resources

Hi all,

In recent posts (click here and here) I have written about instrumented monitoring of aerial anomalies. The thought behind this is the acquisition of hard data concerning such anomalies.

In astronomical and atmospheric research circles, there are networks of instruments which monitor the skies, e.g. for aurora or for fireballs. In the realm of fireball research, there are three well known networks:

1. The Prairie Fireball Network (USA.)
2. The Meteorite Observation and Recovery Project Network (MORP) (Canada.)
3. The European Fireball Network.

In each case, cameras monitor large volumes of the skies.


Australian fireball network:

There is a lesser known network in Australia, the Desert Fireball Network (DFN.) It is a network of automated digital cameras, monitored through satellites, designed to photograph fireballs, then to triangulate their trajectory, and finally to attempt recovery of meteorites on the ground.

It was initially established across part of the Nullarbor Plain, but in September 2014 was extended to five more locations, all in South Australia, namely, Gum Glen; Mount Ives; Kondolka; Nilpena, and Wilpoorinna. Since its establishment in 2007 the DFN has photographed numerous fireballs, leading to recovery of pieces of two of them. It also recently photographed the 4 August 2014 Perth, WA, fireball.

The DFN website (click here ) states that the DFN is "...a project designed to find out where meteorites come from in the solar system." The DFN is a collaboration between:

1. Imperial College, London.
2. Ondrejou observatory in the Czech Republic.
3. Curtin University in Western Australia.
4. The West Australian Museum.

The website also states that "The final network will image the night sky over roughly one third of Australia."


Email:

I recently emailed the DFN project to ask a couple of questions, namely:

1. What is the lowest magnitude brightness meteors that the system can detect?

2. Has the system ever detected anything in the sky which appeared anomalous and hence is new to science? I am thinking here of the discovery of such phenomenon as upper atmospheric lightning, e.g. sprites associated with thunderstorms. I know that sometimes instrumented systems pick up things that they were not designed for, much to our surprise and delight."

I am awaiting a response.


Are these networks useful for UAP research?

Way back in 1968, the Condon Committee explored the value of the Prairie Fireball Network, by comparing some of the reports they received from the area covered by the network. "Colorado project scientists attempted to evaluate the usefulness of the Prairie Network as an instrumented system for UFO searches." The 16 stations of four cameras each were used. "The Network's identification of 18% of all sightings with a fair degree of probability..." was the outcome. (1969. "Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects." Bantam Books. New York. pp769-773.)

In 2013, the team at Curtin University developed a smart phone app called "Fireballs in the sky." When a person sees a fireball they point their camera at the point in the sky where they first saw it, click the phone; then point to the location in the sky where they last saw the fireball and click. The app can then assist determine the path of the fireball, with sufficient observations. The phone's accelerometer, GPS, and compass provide the raw data for the calculations of trajectory. Perhaps, a future app could document UAP sightings in the same way?


Other Australian instrumented systems:

There are also a number of "All sky" cameras in Australia, including one located at Mount Stromlo. Here, the Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics of the Australian National University runs a fish eye camera. Their website (click here) shows both static images, both fish eye and corrected, and a movie of images from the past few hours.

There is also an "Aurora patrol" camera located at Cressy in Tasmania, run by the Bureau of Meteorology. This is a CCD camera, where viewers can see both a static image; a video of sky images for up to the last ten days, and an image archive, all viewable on the net. Click here.

Finally, the Perth Observatory website has a sky camera which provides a wide field image of the night sky updated every ten minutes, viewable on the net. Click here.

"Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena and Experimental Strategy: Methods, Equipment and Lessons from Instrumented Field Studies."

Hi all,

Continuing on with a series of posts about papers presented at the July 2014, Paris, GEIPAN workshop, the next presentation I wish to review was one by Philippe Ailleris, who established the UAP Observations Reporting Scheme (click here), based in The Netherlands.

Ailleris notes that observations of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (UAP) have been reviewed by the use of such measures, as physical traces; videos; photographs; visual observations, and radar. "Nonetheless they have failed to provide sufficiently reliable evidence to convince the scientific community of the existence of anomalous aerial phenomena on Earth."

Following this, Ailleris states "It is obvious that a change of methodology is necessary and that the UAP phenomenon requires an active investigative response to move toward a scientific solution." Instrumented UAP observations are needed. He illustrates this with examples of past efforts,and provides results obtained. In doing so he noted their limitations and shortcomings, with a view to refining future proposed instrumented data collection.

"Finally the paper highlights the importance of studying the history of the UFO controversy, especially the necessity of accurately documenting and preserving the information pertaining to these historical research efforts (allowing the past work to guide future projects), and encouraging official bodies to be open and transparent in communications relating to genuine UAP reports."


Notes:

1. The full abstract of the presentation is available here, a presentation slide here.

"Useful Research Methods for Aircrew and Air Traffic Controller UAP sightings."

Hi all,

A fifth paper of interest from the July 2014, Paris, GEIPAN workshop was by US based researcher, Dr. Richard Haines of NARCAP (click here.) His paper was titled "Useful Research Methods for Aircrew and Air Traffic Controller UAP sightings."


Introduction:

"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) continue to be reported by pilots and air traffic controllers around the world...little more is known today about the true nature of UAP than was known in the 1950's...UAP also appear without warning near airplanes in flight which is the primary subject of this paper."


Future methodology:

"Our future research methodology must focus upon invisible and unexpected Black-swan-like events that lie outside the expectations of highly experienced UAP investigators and aviation officials than upon what appears to be the obvious."

"UAP investigators should focus on establishing a broad "net" in which to "catch" all of the objective...and subjective characteristics of UAP."

Haines calls for a "...comprehensive taxonomy of UAP to categorize and parse the various classes of these phenomena."

In the next section of the paper, Haines discusses what should be recorded when interviewing aircrew and documents the processes undertaken by NARCAP in this respect. He then proceeds to illustrate what might be learnt by an examination of the aircraft involved in terms of potential instrumented data. Reconstruction of the observation is important, to record any and all available information. He concludes that "Because we still do not know what UAP are we are wise to collect and analyze more information that we may think we need and not reject data too soon simply because it does not seem to be relevant."

"There is little doubt that unidentified aerial phenomena are complex...I believe, however, that when the data is integrated properly and the seemingly anomalous features are included - despite their apparent challenges to current scientific laws - we will really move forward in our understanding of what UAP are."


Conclusions and recommendations:

"As this paper has pointed out there are many useful procedures available for collecting, recording, and analysing pilot and ATC personnel data. Also, as has been mentioned, these myriad data call for application of scientific procedures involving hypothesis testing, control groups, creative data selection and integration and leaving our personal biases behind."


Notes:

1. A very useful tool is a list of selected research URL's used by Haines and NARCAP. These include "aero-physics;" astronomical; "geo-physics;" airports; rocket launch data, etc.

2. The full text of the paper is available, click here. The associated presentation slides are available here.

3. All in all, I found this another extremely useful and practical paper, which should be essential reading for all civilian UAP researchers.

Survey and analysis of French UAP reports

Hi all,

This is the fourth in a series of posts concerning selected papers presented at the July, 2014, GEIPAN workshop held in Paris. This post summarises my take on a paper titled "Qualitative Expert Evaluation and Quantitative Characterization of Official Reports on Alleged Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in France (1970-1979)," by Jean-Pierre Rospars (click here.)


Introduction:

Rospars sets out to analyse a set of about one thousand reports from the Gendarmerie Nationale for the decade 1970-1979. This analysis aimed to explore:

1. Are the "interesting" sightings of little or not understood phenomena?

2. Is there "Statistically significant quantitative difference between "interesting" and "uninteresting" sightings?"


Reliability of report classification:

Twenty eight engineers from CNES Toulouse classified the reports into four categories. These were:

(A) Fully identified phenomenon.
(B) Phenomenon likely assignable to a known phenomenon.
(C) Unidentified phenomenon but the report is of little value.
(D) Unidentified phenomenon and report is of sufficient interest to deserve a subsequent analysis.

The author also personally categorised the set of reports.

He concludes that "A classification will be considered reliable if and only if the same report evaluated by two (or more) experts is put in the same category."


Findings:

1. "Is the identified/unidentified...correlated to the distance between the observer and the reported phenomenon?" The answer was yes, "72% of the 'close' ones are in category D."

2. "How are the reported events related to the population of potential observers?" This result suggested that reports of category D occur preferentially in the least densely populated communes."

3. "How does the frequency of reports vary as a function of the time of the day?" The answer was, "...the expression in percent...shows a clear excess of D cases over AB cases from 9pm to 3am..."


Future investigations:

The results:

1. "Call for a better definition of the "surely explained" A and "probably explained " B categories.

2. It would appear that "explained" and "unexplained" reports have separate characteristics.

3. "More generally, may the contribution of expert evaluation and statistical comparisons lead to a more objective appraisal of the global significance of reports."


Notes:

The full English version of the paper is available, click here. 

UAP photo/video authentication and analysis

Hi all,

A third fascinating paper presented at the July 2014, Paris, GEIPAN workshop was titled "UAP photo/video Authentication and Analysis." It was authored by Francois Lounge, Antoine Cousyn, click here; and Geoff Quick, click here.


Authentication:

The authors propose that the first step is to determine if the image is an "authentic original." They provide definitions for both silver and digital photography. They then suggest a check of associated tags and markers; then a comparison with a technical camera database.


Identification of an artifact:

Is the image an external stimulus? Does it arise from lenses; on the photosensitive sensor or in the encoding process of the image file? Is it a fake or image montage?


Analysis and mensuration:

If there was an external stimulus, can it be linked to a material object or a "purely luminous phenomenon?" If it cannot be identified can we determine such things as "...distance from the camera; size; velocity; acceleration; color, energy..."


Tools for specificities of video:

Analysis of a video series of images can include flexible visualization, further image analysis, and frame de-interlacing.


IPACO:

Co-author Lounge has developed software (IPACO) to provide "...the UAP photo/video analyst with an easy-to-use dedicated tool which fulfils most of the requirements for in-depth investigations." IPACO works in English and in French.


Definitions:

The authors take time to define such terms as digital photography; metadata; and authentic original
photograph. Existing tools are reviewed and compression signatures are discussed. "IPACO provides a set of specific authentication functionality, which are divided into two parts..." Firstly, check all associated tags and markers. Secondly, comparison with a technical database of cameras.


Limits:

It is clear that "...one photo of a scene will not be able to provide all the information contained on the original scene..." Also, "...very quick movements may not be detected on a video, because of the limitations in temporal resolution."


Possible measurements:

These include such things as angular measurements; and distance assessment. An example analysis is given, namely the Chambley case of 2007. The image shows one dark, oval shaped object, in a photograph showing a number of balloons. The analysis suggested that it was "...probably a child's balloon."


IPACO's dedicated analysis tools:

These include "quick detection of lens flares"; "detection of a suspended thread;" 'detection of a Chinese lantern." Example photographs and analysis are given for each of these.


Comment:

This is an excellent, illustrated, comprehensive technical guide to authentication and analysis of UAP photography/videos. For the full paper click here. For more on IPACO and its services click here.

"Instrumented monitoring of aerial anomalies."

Hi all,

Another speaker at the July 2014, Paris, GEIPAN meeting (click here) was astrophysicist Massimo Teodorani (click here.) He presented a paper titled "Instrumented Monitoring of Aerial Anomalies: A Scientific Approach to the Investigation of Anomalous Atmospheric Light Phenomena." I will provide my summary of his paper.


Introduction:

In his introduction, Teodorani notes that sightings of anomalous lights occur in several locations on earth. These lights exhibit no solid structure, or surface, However, they do appear as very bright, spheres, with "...peculiar characteristics in its structure, motion, and luminosity/colour variations."


Statistical considerations:

From work Teodorani himself has conducted, he suggest that "...it can be concluded that such kind of anomalies are subject to no real increase in time..." with apparent increases over the years being judged due to the increased media attention, increased Internet exposure and increased cell phone availability.

In terms of spatial distribution, his work leads him to state that numbers of reports are "...totally dependent on the population number...." Thus some apparent areas with high numbers of reports may be due solely to the population of that area, and not an inherent concentration of lights in that area. Thus some areas known for frequent observations may not actually be special. However, some locations do indeed have an above average number of lights, eg. Hessdalen valley, Norway.


Monitoring investigations in Italy:

A number of research groups in Italy are engaged in monitoring anomalous light phenomenon in recent years. However, "...no real scientific results and/or conclusions have been obtained so far, except for a quite accurate correlation of reported cases with geological or geophysical parameters." He illustrates this section, with several photographs of such observations.


Scientific observations in Hessdalen Valley:

A permanent measuring station has been in existence for some time and has provided visual observations, photographs, videos and occasionally, instrumented measurements.

Research there has provided some information, including:

1. The lights seen are often spherical, of different colours, often of long duration  (30-60 minutes), "spaced out by periods of "off" and "on" phases..."

2. "They are often able to emit a high level of radiant energy ...on the order of 20Kw in the optical spectrum..."

3. "The very few optical spectra...do not show a 'unified pattern' (such as that of a star)..."

4. "Quite often the light phenomenon present a radar track."


The main problem for "light balls":

"One way to attack the physics of the problem...can, in principle, be quantified by considering an essential set of equations, which do not differ substantially from the ones used in stellar physics..."

He presents a set of equations "...that define the 'plasma sphere structure,' after assuming that a plasma sphere can be considered as a sort of 'mini star...' '


Methodology of research:

The author admits that this research is difficult. The appearance of light balls is unpredictable. "We now have only a preliminary scientific picture of the phenomenon. But we do not have yet any definitive and clear explanation of the enigma of the self-containment of such light balls..."

"Of course the only way to solve the still open physical problems in this field is to have the possibility to carry out a systematic and very well funded research, so that recurrence areas can be monitored constantly using both scientific personnel on field and automatic measuring equipment." Teodorani details several thoughts on just what would be needed.


Conclusion:

Understanding the mechanism by which these light balls are generated might lead to laboratory reproduction and hence a possible new energy source.


Note:

To read the full paper in English, click here. For his slide presentation, click here. To view a video of his talk, click here.

Jacques Vallee - workshop talk - GEIPAN, Paris - July 2014

Hi all,

Introduction:

One of the speakers at the 8-9 July, 2014, Paris workshop, held by the "Groupe D'Etudes Et D'Informations sur les Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non Identifes" (GEIPAN), was veteran researcher and author Jacques Vallee.

Having had a long term interest in Vallee's work in this field, I am always intrigued to hear what he has to say. It was therefore, with particular pleasure that I noted that the workshop proceedings have now been published via the GEIPAN website.


The paper:

Vallee's workshop paper was titled "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: A Strategy for Research."

It starts by presenting an historical overview of the collection of UAP observations, which have been undertaken in the past. He notes that both professionals and amateurs have built up catalogues and online databases. Such collections include those by the Batelle Memorial Institute; NICAP; CUFOS; GEIPAN; NARCAP and the National Institute for Discovery Science. Individuals named, include Aime Michel; Guy Quincy; David Saunders; Ted Phillips; Mark Rodeghier; and Claude Poher. Jacques and Janine Vallee, of course, contributed extensively to this work.


Obstacles to analysis:

Vallee then provides a number of obstacles which lie in the way of future research. One is the "Lack of data validation and missing standards..." Another is that "Every group tends to use its own way of indexing, which makes it impractical, if not impossible, to implement data fusion or simply to exchange information."

Vallee's proposed solution is "...to avoid ideological biases the clear scientific approach is to build a platform of screened calibrated data." He then provides details of the "Capella" data warehouse concept used by the National Institute for Discovery Science.


Unsolved questions:

These include overall patterns; the physics of the phenomenon; specific locations where the phenomenon appears more frequently; social and cultural impacts; the impact on human observers, and methodology and epistemology.


The way forward:

Vallee then states "It is striking to observe that ALL the above issues could be addressed with the current tools of the Sciences, WITHOUT pre-conceived ideology; and without using the ETH as the primary hypothesis to be tested."

Vallee observes that "From a computer science point of view, however this situation is not amenable to simple, packaged solutions. In particular, hierarchical, non-procedural or table driven (relational) data bases that work well in corporate settings cannot be used effectively. Even the use of newer approaches like natural-language processing of large amounts of text with Google engines and the like may only result in greater confusion and misleading answers."

Vallee closes by suggesting "...we believe new structures must be built in careful layers using a NO-SQL data structure. In a preliminary data phase data must be screened, scrubbed and reviewed..."

"Timing and standardisation are essential...It is also crucial to implement better coordination among various centers."

For the full text of Vallee's paper, click here, and presentation slides, click here. A video of his talk is also available, click here.

The full report of the 1970 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics subcommittee

Hi all,

I have been spending some time recently, thinking about the number of scientific symposia which have been held on UAP, over the years; and of the professional bodies which have reviewed the topic.
A sub-committee of the AIAA examined the topic between 1967 and 1970, before releasing a statement. Thanks to a Melbourne based research associate, I recently acquired a copy of the three page statement, and found it worthy of sharing with readers.


"UFO An Appraisal of the problem.
A statement by the UFO subcommittee of the AIAA.

To gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO problem, the UFO subcommittee of the AIAA from its inception in 1967, decided to place specific, well-defined questions to UFO experts of high scientific qualifications but strongly divergent views. Surprisingly, the factual answers the subcommittee obtained in a series of interesting interviews were strikingly similar. Differences occurred in certain quantitative estimates and in the degree of emphasis but not in principle.

It was at the next step where the views began to diverge: subjective judgement as to the scientific significance of the problem and the need to pursue and explore it. Obviously, such opinion depends on the criteria applied by the individual, and much of the discord appears to be due to a lack of analysis of these criteria. It is at this stage where guesses and speculation creep into the discussion and lead to controversy.

In the opinion of the UFO subcommittee, such speculations are entirely premature and no position is absolutely defensible at this point in time.

This applies specifically to statements that the extraterrestrial hypothesis ("ETH") is "the least probable" or "the least improbable" explanation. National Academy of Sciences' review of the "Condon Report"; James E McDonald's statements. There is no scientific basis for assessing such probabilities at this time.

The subcommittee was greatly perturbed by the paucity of thorough scientific and technological analyses applied to practically all observations before the Condon study. The few often courageous efforts by individuals to come to grips with this problem should be viewed more from an aspect of focussing attention on the problem rather than of solving it, since there is little doubt that it takes more than a personal effort to investigate fully a problem of such complexity.

In the opinion of the committee, the Colorado university study, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects", (the "Condon  Report, Bantam Books, New York, 1969) at this time represents the most scientifically oriented investigation published on the UFO problem. Attacks directed against the study seem to over look the almost insurmountable difficulties which a short-time, one-shot project of this type faces: building up the multi-disciplinary, unbiased talent, accumulating practical experience, collecting hard information, sorting out the signal from the noise, applying the best analytical methods and writing and editing a report in less than two years.

To understand the Condon report, which is difficult to read due in part to its organisation, one must study the bulk of the report. It is not enough to read summaries, such as those by Sullivan and by Condon, or summaries of summaries, on which the vast majority of readers and news media seems to rely. There are differences in the opinions and inclusions drawn by the authors of the various chapters and there are differences between these and Condon' summary. Not all conclusions contained in the report itself are fully reflected in Condon's summary. For example, the optical/radar chapter contains the following statement on the Lakenheath case (1956):

The apparently rational, intelligent behaviours of the UFO suggest a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out.

On Colorado Springs case (1967);

In view of the meteorological situation, it would seem that AP (anomalous propagation) was rather unlikely. Besides, what is the probability that an AP return would appear only once and at that time appear to execute a perfect practice ILS approach.

Condon's own conclusions have been widely misquoted. He says:

"...scientists are no respecters of authority. Our conclusion that study of UFO reports is not likely to advance science will not be uncritically accepted by them. Nor should it be, nor do we wish it to be. For scientists, it is our hope that the detailed analytical presentation of what we were able to do, and of what we were unable to do,will assist them in deciding whether or not they agree with our conclusions. Our hope is that the details of this report will help other scientists in seeing what the problems are and the difficulties of coping with them.

"If they agree with our conclusions, they will turn their valuable attention and talents elsewhere. If they disagree, it will be because our report has helped them to reach a clear picture of wherein existing studies are faulty and incomplete and thereby will have stimulated ideas for more accurate studies. If they do get such ideas and can formulate them clearly, we have no doubt that support will be forthcoming to carry on with such clearly defined specific studies. We think that such ideas for work should be supported.

Therefore, we think that all of the agencies of the federal government, and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to consider UFO research proposals along with the others submitted to them on an open-minded, unprejudiced basis. While we do not think at present that anything worthwhile is likely to come of such research each individual case ought to be carefully considered on its own merits."

Condon's chapter "Summary of the study" contains more than its title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions. Making value judgements was no doubt one reason why Condon was asked to handle the project. One is happy to obtain the judgement of so experienced and respected a man; but one need not agree with it. The UFO subcommittee did not find a basis for his prediction that nothing of scientific value will come of further studies.

In reviewing the material accumulated to date, the subcommittee found an exceedingly low signal-to-noise ratio, as illustrated by the statistics of the Air Force's Project "Bluebook" quoted in the University of Colorado study, which showed 3.3% unidentified observations (253 out of 7741 available at that time *) This figure is frequently disputed, but its order of magnitude (5%) appears to be correct, taking all available reports into account. The fact that the Condon study itself arrives at  a much higher percentage of unexplained cases -namely, at about 30% (35 out of 117) - is primarily due to the preselection of specific cases for investigation. The precise figure is hard to assess, for the Condon report does not lend itself easily to this type of analysis, the same cases being treated often in different sections and under different identifications. (*The final figure, according to our information appears to be 701 out of 12,618 or 5.5%.)

It has been variously estimated that the reported cases, approximately 20,000, represents only 5 to 15% of the total observations, since most observers do not go to the trouble of an official report or fear ridicule. In turn, various polls suggest that 3 to 5% of the US population claims to have seen UFOs. It follows, then, that the available reports which can be classified as "unidentified" represent a very small percentage of all UFO sightings on the one hand, but not a negligible number of observations.

It is interesting that, contrary to public opinion, the estimated percentage of "hoaxes" is likewise small (less than 5%) and that the great majority of UFO sightings can be explained by known phenomena (about 75%) while 15 to 20% contain insufficient data. In other words, what may appear to the untrained observer as strange and inexplicable is in most cases known and explainable.

Taking all evidence which has come to the subcommittees' attention into account, we find it difficult to ignore the small residue of well-documented but unexplainable cases which form the hard core of the UFO controversy. They represent only a small fraction of the 'unidentified' cases and are characterised by both a high degree of credibility and a high abnormality ("strangeness" in Hynek's terminology.) Although none of them offers to our knowledge quantitative recordings by calibrated instruments for permanent inspection, they are often called "hard cases."

The subcommittee has tried to explore the nature of this hard-core residue and found estimates to vary between 10 and several hundred cases; depending in part on a subjective judgement as to the criteria for a "hard case." High credibility is generally accepted for observations by multiple independent sensory systems (reporting by multiple independent operators) or both; high abnormality or strangeness, when no known natural phenomena whatsoever seems to fit the observation. It is clear then, that the hard-core residue represents less than 1% of the total available reports.

Those used to working under controlled laboratory conditions find it difficult to consider seriously any observation which is not available in recorded form for qualitative inspection. As a matter of fact, they make this a criterion for a 'hard case." On the other hand, there are those , including some members of the subcommittee, familiar with the intricacies of research in the complex and uncontrolled laboratory of the atmosphere, who find this less of a deterent. They discover parallels between the UFO problem and certain atmospheric phenomena which fall in the class of rare events. A rare event always involves at first a question of the reality of a qualitative observation. Later, scientific investigation, usually combining statistics and physics, resolves this question one way or the other.

Although the University of Colorado deals only with a small fraction of the existing observational material (less than 15%), it offers itself enough substance of the described sort, especially if additional information extracted by MacDonald is added to some of the cases. In fact, the subcommittee finds that the opposite conclusion could be drawn from its content, namely that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30%) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.

Then issue seems to boil down to the question: Are we justified to extrapolate from 0.99 to 1.00, implying that if 99% of all observations can be explained, the remaining 1% could also be explained, or do we face a severe problem of signal-to-noise ratio (order of magnitude 10-2)?

In the opinion of the subcommittee this question must be asked critically and objectively in each individual case. In cases which do not fit the extrapolation alternative, the further question should be explored, "Do they evidence common attributes?" It appears to the subcommittee that the University of Colorado has made no serious attempt in this direction.

It is obviously difficult to reach a consensus on what constitutes a hard case, it appears even more difficult to find agreement on the advisability and importance of continued research. As mentioned earlier, it is at this point where the controversy often becomes heated because criteria for such assessment are not well-defined.

Earlier, Condon' statement was quoted that "Clearly defined, specific studies..should be considered and supported." In this conclusion he calls attention to "important areas of atmospheric optics, including radio wave propagation, and of atmospheric electricity in which present knowledge is quite incomplete. These topics come to our attention in connection with the interpretation of some UFO reports, but they are also of fundamental scientific interest, and they are relevant to practical problems related to the improvement of safety of military and civilian flying."

The subcommittee finds this statement of the Condon report a better criterion for support of UFO-related studies than the claims by some ETH proponents that UFO research deserves maximum support as long as there is a ghost of chance that UFOs are extraterrestrial  vehicles, or the opposite claim that proof for the ETH must be provided before serious consideration of the UFO problem is justified. Both opinions strike the subcommittee as unwarranted.

We have already expressed our disenchantment with arguments about the probability of the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs, since there is not sufficient scientific basis at this time to take a position one way or another. However, in view of the infancy of our scientific and technological knowledge (approximately one century), the subcommittee would agree with this statement by Condon "We must not assume that we are capable of imagining now the scope and extent of future technological development of our own or any other civilisation, and so we must guard against assuming that we have any capacity to imagine what a more advanced society would regard as intelligent conduct." On the other hand, we find no convincing basis for his statement, "It is safe to assume that no ILE (intelligent life elsewhere) from outside our solar system has any possibility of visiting Earth in the next 10,000 years." (When does the counting start?)

The question arises whether there is a need at all to speculate on a specific hypothesis such as ETH, in order to decide on the significance of a scientific problem, or whether any known phenomenon in nature is worth investigating. We think it is, but we recognise at the same time that the UFO problem may require expensive tools of technology. Therefore the question of cost, priority, and relative importance of this problem within the total spectrum of research cannot be overlooked.

The UFO subcommittee feels that the ETH, tantalising though it may be, should not be dragged into this consideration as it introduce an unassessable element of speculation; but the subcommittee also strongly feels that, from a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations and to close the book on them on the basis of premature conclusions.

There is an interesting parallel between the history of the UFO problem and the history of weather modification ("rainmaking"). After almost 20 years of taboo by the scientific community, weather modification has now achieved scientific recognition due to the fact that some courageous high-caliber scientists entered the arena. This has resulted in a revision of the viewpoint of the National Academy of Science.

The immediate question is how to attack the UFO problem without the pitfalls of past attempts. There is little doubt that the short-time, one-shot approach of an ad hoc team is neither promising nor economical. This is especially true if the study team decides - as the University of Colorado group did - to concentrate on current rather than past observations. As the UFO statistics show, this results in the devotion of precious time to investigate the noise, rather than the signal. It was mentioned earlier that the Colorado University study faced formidable obstacles because of the short duration of its contract. If the recommendation of the O'Brien committee to negotiate multiple contracts for continuing investigations had been followed, this difficulty would perhaps have been avoided. There is also little hope to expect a solution of this extremely complex problem by the efforts of a single individual.

The subcommittee sees the only promising approach as a continuing, moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data  collection by objective means and on high quality scientific analysis. This would eliminate the difficult problem of witness credibility. An economic and technically sound approach involving available remote sensing capability and certain software changes will require some thinking on the side of the aerospace engineering community.

Proposals along this line are already in the hands of the subcommittee. The financial support should be kept at a moderately low level. (It is estimated that a small fraction of the cost of the University of Colorado study would be requires initially) until re-evaluation of the situation allows another assessment. Without such an effort the controversy can be expected to suffer further polarisation and confusion.

The subcommittee feels that s strictly scientific technological review of the UFO problem leads to this conclusion and that, for a technical committee, there is no need to stress the public and social aspect of the UFO controversy, which may have subsided only temporarily and will continue to clammer for a more conclusive and convincing answer. The subcommittee is aware of several books to be published in the near future. What is needed now is a moratorium in the UFO discussion - with an objective, wait-and-see attitudes on the part of the scientific and engineering community, the government and the public.

The approach recommended by this subcommittee require not only the attention of the scientist and engineer, but also a readiness of government agencies to consider any proposals in this field without bias or fear of ridicule and repercussion- or, as Condon expresses it "on an openminded, unprejudiced basis." This perhaps is our most important conclusion.

Finally the subcommittee believes the decision by the Air Force to divorce itself from the UFO problem should be completed by allowing the files to be archived by a civilian agency, either government or university, after proper safeguards for the protection of witnesses and their names as well as full declassification procedures.

The subcommittee intend to publish additional information on the UFO problem in the AIAA journals to give the members of AIAA an opportunity to form their own opinion. This information will include typical examples of the so-called "hard-case residue" and some potential engineering approaches to a solution of the controversy.

Comments:

To me, the key points of this reports are:

1. There is a small residue of well documented, unexplained cases.

2. The best criterion to support UFO related studies is the possibility of advancing our knowledge of some atmospheric optics and atmospheric electricity.

3. Don't waste precious time on the noise - hone in on the signal.

4. We need improved data collection and higher quality analysis of this data.

The French 3AF SIGMA2 technical group has recognised point three by stating they will focus on "unsolved cases", e.g. GEIPAN type D.

More on the little known 1980 Smithsonian Institution UAP symposium

Hi all,

In reviewing a number of scientific symposia on UAP, I mentioned the little known 1980 Smithsonian Institution event. My Sydney research associate provided me with two sources of further information about the event.


Jerome Clark;

The first source is Clark, J. 1989. "The UFO Encyclopaedia." (2nd. ed.) Omnigraphics. Detroit. ISBN 0-7808-0097-4, pp 854-855. One of my reasons for reviewing the several symposia that I have posted about, was to see if our knowledge of the subject has advanced since they were held. I will, therefore, reproduce Clark's piece in full.

"Smithsonian UFO debate.

On September 6 1980, at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, UFO proponents and debunkers squared off for a day-long debate on the merits of the case for UFOs - a debate for which debunkers had long lobbied, convinced that it would show up the weaknesses of the ufologists' case.

Proponents were Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist employed by the US Navy; J Allen Hynek, Northwestern University astronomer and former Project Blue Book consultant, and Allan Hendry, chief investigator for the Center for UFO Studies (Now the J Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies).

The debunkers were Philip J Klass, aviation journalist and head of the UFO subcommittee of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal; James E Oberg, aerospace engineer and science writer, and Robert Sheaffer, writer and Skeptical Inquirer columnist. The debate was moderated by Frederick C Durant.

During morning and afternoon sessions advocates and antagonists repeated arguments familiar to those who had maintained more than a passing interest in the subject. The former cited the persistence of the UFO phenomenon and the puzzling nature of the best reports. The latter charged that there is "no scientifically credible evidence" (Klass) and that UFOs "seem to behave like fairies and ghosts" (Sheaffer). Some of the debate concerned the relevance of polygraph tests to a UFO investigation, with Hendry citing studies indicating their unreliability and Klass asserting "I'm prepared to take a polygraph test on everything." Hynke said, "Reading a good UFO report is like reading Agatha Christie - except there is no last page to turn to."

Oberg, taking note of tabloid tales of aliens on the moon not ordinarily mentioned in serious arguments for the existence of UFOs, declared ufology a "failed science." (Rohrer, 1980.)

The most heated exchange occurred between Klass and Hendry. Klass accused Hendry of "withholding data" which would have led to a prosaic explanation for a case Hendry had investigated the year before, an incident in which Marshall County, Minnesota, Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson reportedly saw a UFO shooting down a deserted country highway toward his patrol car. Johnson suddenly passed out. When he awoke he discovered his vehicle had been damaged and his eyes injured. (Hendry, 1979.)

"I would agree there are only two possible explanations to this case," Klass said. "It could not have been Venus. It could not have been a weather balloon. It could not have been an hallucination. Either it was a spaceship, or Deputy Val Johnson did it himself because he likes to play practical jokes, especially in the late evening when he gets a little bored, as I learned -Hendry did not - by talking to some of the people who have worked with him and know him very well. I also discovered that he once talked about setting up a UFO patrol to go out looking for UFOs. Yet, according to Hendry, this was a deputy who...prior to his sighting 'was rather indifferent to the UFO subject'..."

"I would wish that Allan Hendry...had taken the final step and said, 'Val Johnson, will you take a polygraph - a lie detector test given by a very experienced examiner? Let's see what the results are.'"

Hendry responded, "We've already heard from Philip Klass today a perfectly excellent illustration of why it would be difficult to ever convince the skeptics based on the facts." Hendry said that Klass' penchant for digging up irrelevant episodes in UFO witnesses' past and using them as evidence that their testimony should be rejected amounted to "character assassination." Hendry cited another case, the alleged abduction of Travis Walton (...) in which polygraph tests had come to conflicting conclusions, as had two polygraph experts who later reviewed the charts. "Thus," he said "you begin to understand why I did not feel that the final step in an examination of Deputy Val Johnson necessarily rests on a polygraph examination."

He added, sarcastically, "Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Klass, I think that Val Johnson is such a practical joker that he deliberately injured his eyes - as judged by two doctors - and he deliberately entered a phony state of shock for the benefit of the ambulance driver who removed him from the scene of the accident." (Clark, 1981.) Hendry remarked that Johnson's casual talk of a "UFO patrol" reflected a belief, widely held in rural America at the time, that there was a link between UFOs and seemingly mysterious cattle deaths..."

As an effort to settle the UFO controversy, the Smithsonian debate was a good public spectacle, settling nothing and changing nobody's  mind. No one suggested a sequel."

Sources:

Clark, Jerome. "Phil Klass versus the 'UFO Promoters." Fate 34, 2. (February 1981): 56-57.

Hendry, Allan. "Minnesota CEII: The Val Johnson story." International UFO Reporter Pt 1. 4,3 (September/October 1979); 4-9. Pt II 4,5 (November 1979):4-10.

Rohrer, Stuart. "Tempest in a saucer." Washington Post. (September, 8, 1980).


MUFON Journal:

The second source provided to me by my Sydney research associate, was found in the MUFON Journal number 152, of October 1980 pp.3-4. In an article titled "Smithsonian UFO Symposium" author Richard Hall provided an overview of the event.

Hall's piece included the facts that

* "A large crowd (400-500) filled the Baird Auditorium of the National History Museum."

* The moderator was Frederick C Durant III.

* Dr Hynek probably summed it up best in a comment at the University of Maryland the night before. "I don't know of a single scientific problem that was ever solved by debate, only by hard work." He added, however, that a debate in such a prestigious forum could help to stir up the interest that would allow the hard work to be done."

* "Klass acknowledged that UFOs could not be anyone's secret weapons, but also said they could not be spaceships since the US radar network is all-encompassing and they would not go unidentified. Nor could the US government keep a secret for over 30 years."

* "Sheaffer then proceeded to give the most irrelevant talk of the day, linking ufologists with people who study fairies, witchcraft, astrology and a long list of other borderline sciences or pseudo sciences."

* "Oberg...believes that UFO reports do deserve scientific attention of reasons of serendipity, if nothing else, and that if they are something real, they would clearly be of great import."

Hall summarised "The major impression of this observer was that the level of dialogue has changed little in 30 years, that minds are made up, and that too much time is wasted arguing about 'pop ufology' rather than about the hard core cases...Due to the visible public interest, the Smithsonian is considering publishing the  proceedings."

The 1980 Smithsonian UAP symposium

Hi all,

This is the last in a current series of posts about scientific meetings devoted to the topic of UAP. I have been able to find out very little about this particular symposium, other than the facts below.

The Smithsonian Institute sponsored a half day UAP symposium on 6 September 1980, in Washington, DC, USA.

Six speakers presented papers. These were:

* J Allen Hynek (click here.)
* Allan Hendry (click here.)
* Bruce Maccabee (click here.)
* Phillip J Klass (click here.)
* James E Oberg (click here.)
* Robert Sheaffer - his paper is available online (click here.)

2013 symposium on official and scientific investigations of UAP and UFOs

Hi all,

Continuing my series on scientific symposia, which have been conducted over the years.

On 29 and 30 June 2013, a UAP symposium was held at Greenboro, North Carolina, USA.

It was organised by Kent Senter. Following a 1985 sighting, he founded the North Carolina chapter of MUFON. After being diagnosed with incurable cancer he decided to organise and host this symposium.

Speakers were:

* Dr Richard Haines - "UAP and Flight Safety: There is a Relationship." (Click here.)

* Charles Halt - "Incident at RAF Bentwaters." (Click here.)

* Leslie Kean - "Government and UFOs." (Click here.)

*Nancy Talbot - "The science of crop circles." (Click here.)

* Alexander Wendt - "Militant agnosticism and the UFO taboo." (Click here.)

* Ron Westrum - "Hidden events." (Click here.)

* Wilfried De Brouwer - "UAP wave over Belgium." (Click here.)

* Jose Lay - "The official UAP agency in Chile." (Click here.)

* Xavier Passot - "GEIPAN: The official French bureau for UFO investigations." (Click here.)

*Timothy Good - "Need to know: UFOs the military and intelligence." (Click here.)


For further information please click here and here.

A 1997 scientific UAP review panel

Hi all,

I have been recently posting about scientific groups who have reviewed UAP over the years. Today's post concerns a 1997 scientific panel review, undertaken in the USA. I draw my information from "The UFO Enigma" by Peter A Sturrock; Warner Books, New York, 1999. (Click here.)


How did the panel come about?

"...in December 1996, Mr Laurance Rockefeller (click here), a distinguished and influential citizen and chairman of the LSR fund, invited me to review with him our understanding of the problem posed by UFO reports. We agreed that the problem was in a very unsatisfactory state of ignorance and confusion. I expressed the opinion that the problem will be resolved only by extensive and open professional scientific investigation, and that an essential prerequisite for such research is that more scientists acquire an interest in this topic." (p.61.)

"...therefore conceived of a meeting at which prominent investigators of UFO reports would meet with a panel of eight or nine scientists with wide-ranging interests and expertise." (p.61.)


Investigator group:

* Dr Richard Haines (USA) (Click here.)
* Dr Illobrand von Ludwiger (Germany) (Click here.)
* Dr Mark Rodeghier (USA) (Click here.)
* John F Schuessler (USA) (Click here.)
* Dr Erling Strand (Norway) (Click here.)
* Dr Michael Swords (USA) (Click here.)
* Dr Jacques Vallee (USA) (Click here.)
* Jean-Jacques Velasco (France) (Click here.)


The review panel:

* Dr Von Eshleman, Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University. ·Radiowave propagation and radar.) (Click here.)
* Dr Thomas Holzer. (Space sciences.)
* Dr J R Jokipii, Regents Professor of Planetary Sciences and Astronomy at the University of Arizona. (Geophysical phenomena.) (Click here.)
* Dr Charles R. Tolbert. (Observational astronomy.) (Click here.)
* Dr Francois Louange. (Photographic analysis - France.) (Click here.)
*Dr H J Melosh, Professor of Planetary Science at the University of Arizona. (Geologist.) (Click here.)
* Dr James J Papike, Head of the Institute of Meteoritics. (Upper atmospheric phenomena.) (Click here.)
* Dr Guenther Reitz. German Aerospace Center. (Radiation injuries.) (Click here.)
*Dr Bernard Veyret. Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory at the University of Bordeaux, France. (Plant biology.) (Click here.)


Moderators:

David Pritchard (click here) and Harold Puthoff (click here) served as moderators.


Venue:

The venue selected was the Pocantico conference centre at Rockefeller Estate in Tarrytown, New York."  The group convened on 29 September 1997, for three days.


Presentations by investigators:

* Dr Richard Haines - Photographic evidence.
* Dr Jacques Vallee - Luminosity estimates.
*Jean-Jacques Velasco - radar evidence.
* Dr Erling Strand - The Hessdalen Project.
* Dr Mark Rodeghier - Vehicle interference.
* Dr Richard Haines - Aircraft equipment malfunctioning.
* Dr Michael Swords - Apparent gravitational and.or inertial effects.
* Jean-Jacques Velasco - Injuries to vegetation.
* John F Schuessler - Physiological effects on witnesses.
* Jacques Vallee - Analysis of debris.


Panel's response:

Pages 120-122 present the "Panel's conclusions and recommendations." Among these were:

"It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms ( e.g. sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting." (p.121.)

"On the other hand, the review panel was no convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence." (p.121.)

"It may therefore be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reporters to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science." (p.121.)

"It appears that most current UFO investigations are carried out at a level of rigour that is not consistent with prevailing standards of scientific research." (p.121.)

"Studies should concentrate on cases which include as much independent physical evidence as possible and strong witness testimony." (p.122.)

"Some form of formal regular contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive." (p.122.)

The Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science - UAP symposium 1971

Hi all,

Introduction:

Having recently posted about the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UAP study committee (click here) (1967-1970); and the American  Association for the Advancement of Science 1969 UAP symposium (click here), this post takes us closer to my home, in Adelaide, South Australia. This is because in 1971, the South Australian Division of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science (ANZAAS) (click here), held a one day symposium, in Adelaide, on 30 October 1971. I doubt if many blog readers have ever heard of this symposium, so I thought it would be useful to write a little about it.

Invitation to RAAF:

Interestingly, we can gain insight into the aims of the symposium from correspondence to be found on National Archives of Australia file series A703, control symbol 554/1/30 Part 2, the RAAF's UAP policy file.

On 16 April 1971 Dr B H Horton, the symposium convenor, wrote to the Australian government's Department of Air. This body was the official Australian government agency charged with the responsibility for UFO research. The letter read:

"The committee of the South Australian Division of ANZAAS is convening a one day symposium on the topic of "The Unidentified Flying Object Problem." It is our feeling that there is a certain amount of unhealthy speculation on this subject which tends towards belief in obstruction by scientific and officials and an almost religious attitude.

Our aim is to look at the field and include the hypothesis that the phenomena are related to extraterrestrial life forms and examine this from a number of scientific viewpoints.

As an introduction a representative of a UFO organisation will speak. We then hope that a spokesman for the Department of Air would explain the processing of reports. This approach would repute, in the eyes of the public, the idea of deliberate suppression by officials of such reports.

I would be grateful if you could arrange for a member of your Department to address our symposium on this topic. The period of the talk would be 25 minutes with the option of joining a panel to discuss audience questions at the end of the day. The date of the symposium is 30th October 971. I am enclosing a first draft of a program for the symposium for your information.

Trusting you can assist us in this venture."


Radio station switchboard jammed:

The attachment to this letter reveals the thinking behind the symposium, and its origin.

"During a recent discussion program with listeners' participation on a commercial radio station in Adelaide, the station switchboard was jammed one minute after opening and remained so for the one hour duration of the program.

The topic discussed, which produced such interest, was Unidentified Flying Objects. The listeners' contributions ranged from a personal report of sightings to statements of disbelief. Explanations of the sightings by a physicist on the program in terms of physical phenomena was more educated guesses than sound science. The basic reason for this is that few persons with scientific knowledge are willing to consider the problem seriously. Thus when the topic is discussed with the public, which is definitely interested, scientists appear unknowing and disinterested.

The Committee of the South Australian Division of ANZAAS felt that such an image does very little for the scientific community and, a one day symposium titled "The Unidentified Flying Object problem," to be held in Adelaide on October 30th 1971.


Format of symposium:

The form planned for the symposium is as follows"

(a) A statement of reported sightings by a senior member of the "Flying Saucer Research Group."

(b) A coverage of the treatment of such reports by official bodies given by a responsible member of such an organisation.

(c) A reasonably detailed discussion of the various physical phenomena usually described loosely by non specialists in a number of published explanations.

(d) In view of a largely held belief UFOs are extraterrestrial observers examination of this hypothesis should be considered. The first topic suggested is a study of compatibility of the form of sightings with known satellite observation techniques and foreseeable developments in this field.

(e) If UFOs are extraterrestrial, where is their place of origin? What are the chances of there being other planetary systems in the galaxy. e.g. are there theories relating to the angular momentum of stars and the possible existence of planets. What ranges of radiation fields, temperature conditions, atmospheres, would be expected.

(f) If other planetary systems exist, what conditions would support molecular structures of the complexity necessary for a sentient being capable of constructing surveillance vehicles. What atoms have properties capable of forming complex molecules. Are there examples of such structures. What is the probable form of an extraterrestrial being? How long would it take too develop? Is there a limit to the period that such a species would remain viable.

(g) Given hypothetical distribution of possible planetary systems in the galaxy, and hypothetical development and stable periods for a species what are the chances of space-time coincidence of two space capable technologies with foreseeable and conceptually possible transport systems.

(h) A final paper by a recognised scientist who regards the whole problem as real and worthy of serious attention by the scientific community in view of the observational material available and the often undermanned investigation of this material.

(i) A period in which some or all of the speakers form a panel to comment on points brought out in audience participation discussion."


RAAF response:

Digital page 39 of the file, is a minute from Group Captain R S Royston, Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI) to the Director of Public relations, dated 11 May 1971.

"1. Reference folio 43. It is suggested that you might reply advising the committee of the South Australian Division of ANZAAS that it would not be possible for a member of this Department to attend the symposium on 30 Oct 71 to discuss "The Unidentified Flying Object Problem."

2. It is suggested you might forward Dr Horton a copy of the summary of Unidentified Sightings that you hold in your directorate."

On this minute there are hand written notes, dated 12 May 1971 from the Director Public relations to Assistant Secretary, Air.

"DAFI has recommended that no member be made available to attend the above mentioned symposium. But I do not know whether this will be the departmental attitude. The attached address by Mr R G Roberts will be sent as a useful contribution. The ANZAAS body is a reputable one."

On 26 May 1971 A Sec A wrote to DAFI:

"I agree that a member of this Department should not attend this symposium. I also consider that the suggestion by S Air SS as a footnote to folio 44, that a description of our method of processing reports be provided in lieu of a speaker should be adopted. We might also include reference to our interest in Unidentified Flying Objects and the limits of this interest. A reference to the Condon Report would also be appropriate."

On the 17 Jun 1971, the Secretary, Department of Air, responded to Dr Horton:

"It is regretted that it will not be possible for a member of the Department of Air to attend the symposium on the topic of "The Unidentified Flying Objects Problem" to be held on 30th October 1971. It is hopped however, that the following information may be useful to your society during discussions.

There is no evidence that UFOs have landed in Australia, or, in fact, anywhere on earth. Naturally, however the Department of Air is concerned with any possible threat to Australian security and in that context all reported sightings of UFOs are investigated by RAAF officers. When a sighting is reported to the RAAF, an officer from the nearest RAAF unit interviews the person making the report. The interviewing officer records all pertinent details on a pro forma which is subsequently forwarded to the department of Air where it is processed and summarised. Summaries are held by the Director of Public relations who will provide them to members of the public on request. The summary of sightings is at present being brought up to date and a copy will be forwarded to you within a few weeks.

You may or may not be aware that the United States until late 1969 had a team of scientists investigating the possible presence of UFOs in the American region. Under the direction of Dr Edward Condon, the University of Colorado carried out an exhaustive study. Their report concluded that little if anything had come from the study of UFO reports over a period of 20 years and that further extensive study is not justified. The findings of this investigation were published by Bantam books in a paperback titled "The Condon Report."

Attached for your use is a summary of an address given by Mr B J Roberts, a member of the Department of Air to the Ballarat Astronomical Society at ballast in 1965. It is hoped this will be of value to your discussion."


The Symposium is held:

The symposium went ahead, in Adelaide, South Australia, on 30 October 1971, with an audience of about 300 people in attendance. The program presented was:

1. Dr Brian Horton. Introduction to the topic.
2. Colin Norris. UFO researcher. A history of UFOs and selected reported sightings. (Click here.)
3. Dr Bill Taylor. Read the RAAF Roberts paper.
4. Dr M Duggin. "The Analysis of UFO Reports."




5. Lynn Mitchell. Deputy Director, SA Bureau of Meteorology. Meteorological phenomena of relevance to UFO reports.
6. Dr Peter Delin. "Psychological Aspects of Belief and Disbelief."
7. Dr Don Herbison-Evans. Among other things, described diffraction gratings and their value to gathering spectra of lights in the sky. (Click here.)

A motion was agreed by those at the symposium:

"The symposium as a group feels very strongly that some action on the problem of UFO reports be taken...(and) that  the possibility of setting up a subcommittee for the study of UFO reports be considered by the executive committee of ANZAAS (SA Division.)"

No such subcommittee eventuated.


Notes:

In looking for a copy of the proceedings of this symposium, I located a copy in the National Library of Australia, but failed to find one in the State Library of South Australia. I would welcome hearing from anyone who may have a scanned copy of this document, via an email to me at keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au

American Association for the Advancement of Science - 1969 Symposium

Hi all,

As a comparison to the recent blog posts on the former SIGMA and the current SIGMA2 of the French 3AF (click here and here) , I also drew readers' attention to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' three year study (1967-1970) of UAP (click here.)  One of the reasons for doing this, was to see if we had made any advances in methodology and findings, over the ensuing 44 years. I was then reminded that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (click here), held a symposium on UAP in 1969.

To refresh my own memory, and for the benefit of blog readers who may never have come across that Symposium, I turned to "UFOs:A Scientific Debate" edited by Carl Sagan (click here) and Thornton Page (click here.) The book was published by Cornell University Press, Ithica, in 1972. ISBN 0-8014-0740-0 (click here.)

"In the year preceding the publication of the Condon Report, the editors of this book approached the American Association for the Advancement of Science with the idea of organizing a general symposium at an annual meeting of the Association to discuss the UFO issue. The AAAS Board approved such a symposium for the December 1968 meeting in Dallas...the Symposium was postponed for a year and was finally held on December 26 and 27, 1969, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston." (p.xii.)

The aim of the Symposium was:

"...to bring the various facts on UFOs to the attention of scientists and to show enthusiasts the implications of the very much better organized facts in the physical, biological and social sciences..." (p.3.)

The talks presented at the Symposium were:

Robert L Baker. "Motion Pictures of UFOs."
Frank D Drake. "On the Abilities and Limitations of Witnesses of UFOs and Similar Phenomenon."
Lester Grinspoon and Alan D Persky. "Psychiatry and UFO Reports."
Robert L Hall. "Sociological Perspectives on UFO Reports."
Kenneth R Hardy. "Unusual Radar Echoes."
William K Hartmann. "Historical Perspectives: Photos of UFOs."
J Allen Hynek. "Twenty-One Years of UFO Reports."
James E McDonald. "Science in Default:Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations."
Donald H Menzel. "UFOs-the Modern Myth."
Philip Morrison. "The Nature of Scientific Evidence:A Summary."
Thornton Page. "Education and the UFO Phenomenon."
Douglass R Price-Williams. "Psychology and Epistimology of UFO Interpretations."
Franklin Roach. "Astronomers' Views on UFOs."
Carl Sagan. "UFOs: The Extraterrestrial and Other Hypotheses."
Walter Sullivan. "Influence of the Press and Other Mass Media."

I found some interesting quotes in the book:

""I can present only my own experiences, which has shown that in the UFO business one can trust nothing secondhand." William K Hartmann. (p.11.)

"I think it likely that there are many extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, but I think the evidence of UFO sightings does not support the hypothesis of visitation by these extraterrestrials." Franklin Roach. (p.32.)

"The data that I have reviewed and analyzed since 1954 has led me to believe that there is substantial evidence to support the claim that an unexplained phenomenon - or phenomena - is present in the environs of the earth..." R M L Baker. (p.190.)

(Referring to witnesses of bright meteors.) "The first fact we learned was that a witness's memory of such exotic events fades quickly. After one day, about half of the reports were clearly erroneous...after five days, people report more imagination than truth. It became clear that later they were reconstructing in their imagination an event based on some dim memory of what happened. This is something that the UFO investigator rarely appreciates." Frank D Drake. (p.254.)

"No scientifically adequate investigation of the UFO problem has been carried out during the entire twenty-two year period between the first extensive wave of sightings of unidentified aerial objects in the summer of 1947, and the convening of this symposium." James E McDonald. (p.52.)