UFO UpDate: Science & The Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena By Leslie
Kean

A Research Report: Commissioned by SCI FI Channel


The UFO phenomenon is real

Unidentified aerial phenomena, otherwise known as UFOs, are real, not the stuff
of science fiction. Something for which there is no scientific explanation has
been observed in America�s (and the world�s) air space for over fifty-five
years.  Trained observers�pilots, air traffic controllers, radar operators,
astronauts, military personnel�and government agencies have reported and
documented spectacular events visually, photographically, and on radar. Many
accounts are available in the literature.
* Despite intense public interest, there has been no independent, federally
financed scientific research conducted on these phenomena since the flawed and
biased 1969 Condon report.

The findings of Dr. J. Allen Hynek
The late J. Allen Hynek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State University and
later chairman of the astronomy department at Northwestern University, was an
official astronomical consultant to the U.S. Air Force�s Project Blue Book. His
classified report for the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base recommended that the UFO question be given "the status
of a scientific problem," freeing the scientists from the restraints of secrecy
which confuse the public. "The first effort should be to determine with great
accuracy what the phenomena to be explained really are and to establish their
reality beyond all question," he said.
* His request for a scientific study was not granted. Instead, the Air Force,
CIA, and later the 1969 University of Colorado Condon report undermined valid
scientific data through secrecy and deceptive press releases.

The Congressional testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald
On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee heard the
testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist of the Institute of
Atmospheric Physics and Professor of Meteorology at the University of Arizona. A
respected authority and leader in the field of atmospheric physics, McDonald had
authored highly technical papers for professional journals. He spent two years
examining formerly classified official file material and radar tracking data on
UFOs; interviewing several hundred witnesses; and conducting in-depth case
investigations, details of which were provided to the Committee.
McDonald told the Committee that, "no other problem within your jurisdiction is
of comparable scientific and national importance_the scientific community, not
only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as
nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance."
* Despite an apparent positive response from some Committee members, the
requests of McDonald and other scientists for further action by the Congress
never materialized.

ii Seeking UN sponsorship
Between 1975 and 1978, Sir Eric M. Gairy, Prime Minister of Grenada, proposed to
the United Nations General Assembly that the UN establish "an agency or a
department of the United Nations for undertaking, coordinating, and
disseminating the results of research into Unidentified Flying Objects and
related phenomena." Hynek, with his associate Dr. Jacques Vallee and Lt Col.
Larry Coyne, a US Army pilot who almost collided with a UFO in December, 1978,
asked that the United Nations "provide a clearing house procedure whereby the
work already going on globally can be brought together in a serious,
concentrated approach to this most outstanding challenge to current science." He
pointed out that UFOs had been reported in 133 member states of the UN and that
there existed 1300 cases where "there appears physical evidence of the immediate
presence of the UFO."
* Like the Congressional hearings of 1968, the proposals got nowhere at the UN.
The research of Dr. Peter Sturrock

In 1997, Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied physics at
Stanford University and emeritus director of Stanford�s Center for Space Science
and Astrophysics, organized and directed a four-day workshop funded by
philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller. The purpose of the conference was to
rigorously review purported physical evidence associated with UFO reports and to
assess whether the further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is
likely to help solve the UFO problem.
Seven investigators presented cases with photographic evidence; luminosity
estimates; radar evidence; interference with automobile functioning;
interference with aircraft equipment; apparent gravitational or inertial
effects; ground traces; injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on
witnesses; and analysis of debris.  - A review panel of nine distinguished
scientists from diverse fields recommended continued careful evaluation of UFO
reports stating that, "New data, scientifically acquired and analyzed" could
provide useful information and "physical scientists would have an opportunity to
contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem."
The French government studies the phenomenon The French space agency known as
CNES (Centre National d��tudes Spatiales) has been the only government agency to
conduct a consistent, non-military investigation into UFO incidents for over
twenty years through its agency called SEPRA (Service d�Expertise des Ph�nom�nes
de Rentr�es Atmosph�riques).
In 1999, four-star General Bernard Norlain, former commander of the French
Tactical Air Force, and other retired generals and admirals from the French
Institute of Higher Studies for National Defense; Jean Jacques Velasco, head of
SEPRA; Andre Lebeau, former head of CNES, and a team of scientists and
engineers, released an historic study titled UFOs and Defense:
What Should We Prepare For? The group called themselves the COMETA, meaning
"Committee for In-depth Studies."
iii The French group spent three years examining nearly 500 international
aeronautical sightings and radar/ visual cases, and previously undisclosed
pilots� reports. Their three-year study drew on data from government and
military sources around the world. It concluded that about 5 percent of
sightings on which there is solid documentation seem to be "completely unknown
flying machines with exceptional performances that are guided by a natural or
artificial intelligence."
* To address the problem, the COMETA urged international action.
It recommended that the European Union undertake diplomatic action with the
United States "exerting useful pressure to clarify this crucial issue, which
must fall within the scope of political and strategic alliances." The group
openly challenged US denial of the UFO problem.
Britain�s former defense chief weighs in
Great Britain�s former Chief of the Defense Staff and five-star Admiral Lord
Hill-Norton has taken an outspoken stand in favor of scientific research. Two
years ago, in response to his government�s public dismissal of a
multiple-witnessed landing of a glowing craft that left physical ground traces
at Bentwaters Air Force base in 1980, he said:
* "This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not the
subject of rubbishing by tabloid newspapers."

Aviation safety is a concern
In 2000, Dr. Richard Haines, a retired senior aerospace
scientist from NASA-Ames Research Center and formerly NASA�s
Chief of the Space Human Factors Office, authored a report
documenting over 100 cases of pilot encounters with unidentified
aerial phenomena that raise safety concerns, including 56 near
misses. The objects paced the aircraft at relatively near
distances, disabling on board instrumentation and sometimes
caused pilots to make sudden, evasive changes in their flight
paths. Most incidents remain unreported due to the ridicule and
official debunking policy that the pilots face. According to the
report, "Aviation Safety in America - A Previously Neglected
Factor," published by the National Aviation Reporting Center on
Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP) founded by Haines,
* "Responsible aviation officials should take[these] phenomena seriously and
issue clear procedures for reporting them without fearing ridicule, reprimand or
other career impairment and in a manner that will support scientific research."

It�s time for a scientific study of UFOs
The national security argument is no longer acceptable as a justification for
the U.S. government withholding of decades old reports of events and physical
samples that may have been recovered. Scientists are the proper authorities to
determine the true nature of the UFO phenomena. They stand ready and waiting to
conduct comprehensive, ongoing studies, if only the resources are provided. The
public appears ready to support the research with its tax dollars, if only they
are given the opportunity.
* The policies and attitudes of certain government officials and agencies must
change so that the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena can move
forward with the rest of contemporary science.

Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena Overview
"Physicists working in Europe announced yesterday that they had passed through
nature�s looking glass. . . opening up the possibility of experiments in a realm
once reserved for science fiction writers," stated a September New York Times
article about the creation of antimatter.[1]

A scientific probe into unidentified aerial phenomena, also known as UFOs, could
do the same thing. Yet there has been no independent, federally financed
scientific research conducted on these phenomena since 1969, despite intense
public interest. A September 2002 Roper Poll, prepared for the SCI FI Channel,
showed that 56% of Americans believe that UFOs are something real and 72%
believe that the government is not telling the public everything it knows about
UFO activity.[2]
UFOs are not science fiction. In the 1950�s the Air Force defined them as "any
airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual
features does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or
which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."[3]
There is no implication of origin inherent in the meaning of the word "UFO." It
simply means "unidentified." These objects have been observed in our air space
for over fifty years. Trained observers - pilots, air traffic controllers, radar
operators, scientists, military personnel�and government agencies around the
world have reported and documented spectacular events visually, photographically
and on radar.
Accounts of these incidents are widely available in the literature.[4]
Most of the thousands of UFO reports submitted each year can be explained. But
approximately 5% to 10% represent solid objects capable of speeds,
maneuverability and luminosity far beyond current known technology.[5]
As far as we know, these are not natural and they are not manmade. The question
is: What are they? Why haven�t scientists been able to study them and provide us
with answers? Those scientists who have examined the evidence agree that for the
benefit of all humanity, our government must disclose information on the
phenomenon to facilitate a full-fledged, independent scientific investigation
spanning many disciplines.
"The phenomena is something real"
In 1947, Lt. General Nathan Twining, Commander of Air Materiel Command at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base, sent a now-famous secret memo concerning "Flying
Discs" to Brig. General George Schulgen, Chief of the Air Intelligence
Requirements Division at the Pentagon.
"The phenomena is something real and not visionary or fictitious," he wrote.
"The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb,
maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered
evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to
the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually,
automatically or remotely." Twining described the objects as metallic or
light-reflecting, circular or elliptical with a flat bottom and domed top, and
usually silent.
The AMC Commander stressed the need for "physical evidence in the shape of crash
recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these
objects."[6]
In order to make a detailed study and investigation, the Air Force established
the top secret Project Sign. It presented an "Estimate of the Situation" to
Chief of Staff General Vandenberg, concluding that the evidence indicated UFOs
were interplanetary. Vanderberg decided the report lacked proof and sent it
back; it was declassified and burned shortly thereafter.[7]
From then on, it was clear to Air Force investigators that the effort must shift
to a search for other explanations, such as Soviet spacecraft or weather
balloons. Project Sign was renamed Project Grudge, which became Project Blue
Book in 1951. With no access to case information classified higher than Secret,
the project was largely a public relations effort attempting to explain away as
many sightings as possible.
Government enlists scientists to undermine science
Documents show that while grappling with the reality of unexplainable flying
objects, some government officials could not so easily dismiss the possibility
of something interplanetary. In July of 1952, the FBI was briefed through the
office of Major General Samford, Director of Air Intelligence, that it was "not
entirely impossible that the objects sighted may possibly be ships from another
planet such as Mars." Air Intelligence is "fairly certain" that they are not
"ships or missiles from another nation in this world," the FBI memo reports.[8]
Another FBI memo stated some months later that, "Some military officials are
seriously considering the possibility of planetary ships."[9]
The CIA had urgent national security concerns. H. Marshall Chapman, Assistant
Director of Scientific Intelligence, told the Director of Central Intelligence
(DCI) in 1952 that, "Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and
travelling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations
are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known
types of aerial vehicles."[10]
The agency decided to establish a "national policy" as to "what should be told
the public regarding the phenomenon, in order to minimize risk of panic,"
according to government documents. It would be presented to the National
Security Council. Chapman said the DCI must be "empowered" to initiate the
research necessary "to solve the problem of instant positive identification of
unidentified flying objects."[11]
To do so, the DCI would "enlist the services of selected scientists to review
and appraise the available evidence_"[12]
The office of scientific intelligence began an association with H. P. Robertson,
specialist in physics and weapons systems from the California Institute of
Technology, "toward establishing a panel of top scientists and engineers" for
this purpose.[13]
In January 1953, the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence convened its advisory
panel of "selected scientists" for a cursory, four-day review of some UFO cases
and film footage. The group fulfilled its mission of establishing the desired
national policy: A covert "educational program of training and debunking"
designed to reduce the number of UFO reports. It suggested using "mass media
such as television, motion pictures, and popular articles" to reduce public
interest and gullibility, with the assistance of psychologists and advertising
experts. Civilian groups studying UFOs should be "watched" due to their
influence on public thinking. The final recommendation was that "the national
security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects
of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have
unfortunately received."[14]
The pronouncements of the panel forever affected attitudes in the media toward
the subject of UFOs. Ridicule remains the predominant mainstream media response
to the subject, despite the fact that those dismissing it have not looked at the
evidence and are uninformed. Attitudes of the scientific community are greatly
impacted by media condescension and censorship of this issue.
J. Allen Hynek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State University and later
chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern University, was an official
technical consultant to Project Blue Book for two decades. As a skeptic and
debunker himself when beginning his work for the Air Force, Hynek sat in on most
of the Robertson panel meetings. He said later that the panel gave short thrift
to real science. "The implication in the Panel Report was that UFOs were a
nonsense (non-science) matter, to be debunked at all costs," Hynek wrote in
1977.[15]
After interviewing astronomers on the subject of unidentified flying objects
just prior to the Robertson Panel meeting, Hynek noted that even discussing the
subject led to an "overwhelming fear of publicity" for these scientists.
In a 1952 classified report for the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) at
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Hynek recommended that the UFO question be
given "the status of a scientific problem," freeing the scientists from the
restraints of secrecy which confuse the public. "The number of truly puzzling
incidents is now impressive," he reported. "The first effort should be to
determine with great accuracy what the phenomena to be explained really are and
to establish their reality beyond all question."[16]
His request was not granted. Instead, five months later the Robertson Panel
"made the subject of UFOs scientifically unrespectable. For nearly 20 years not
enough attention was paid to the subject to acquire the kind of data needed even
to decide the nature of the UFO phenomenon," Hynek said.[17]

Air Force press release misrepresents scientific data
Following the 1952 overflights of unidentified objects in Washington DC, which
were picked up on radar at two Air Force bases and chased by F-94 jets[18], the
Air Force turned to the Battelle Memorial Institute, a prestigious scientific
research organization. It asked the Institute scientists to address the
following question: Do the objects officially designated as "unknowns" differ
from the "knowns?" If one examines the basic characteristics of color, speed,
shape, light brightness, number of objects and duration of observation, are the
descriptions similar for both groups? Through a statistical analysis, it could
be determined at what probability the unknowns and knowns were actually the
same. If the characteristics of both groups are close to the same, one could
deduce that the unknowns are probably misidentifications of ordinary things. If
they differ strongly, then one could argue that UFOs are "real." Performed under
the supervision of ATIC, the findings of this study were presented in the 1955
Project Blue Book Special Report #14, classified Secret.[19]
When standardized statistical tests were applied to over 2000 sightings, the
probability was less than 1% for each of the five characteristics (other than
brightness) that the unknowns and knowns were the same. Yet the report�s
conclusion blatantly disregarded these definitive results. It stated, "The
results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm nor deny that
the unknowns are primarily unidentified knowns, although they do indicate that
relatively few of the unknowns are astronomical phenomena."
The unknowns were defined in the Battelle report as distinct from known objects
such as balloons, astronomical data, aircraft, and miscellaneous and
psychological manifestations.  They were also defined as clearly distinct from
those sightings with insufficient information. In other words, there was enough
information to determine the unknowns were not anything known.  Yet the summary
stated the false contradiction that "all unidentified aerial objects could have
been explained if more complete observational data had been available."[20]
Another finding of the study was that unknowns constituted 33% of all sightings
from 1947 - 1955 for which the reliability of the sighting was categorized as
"excellent." Yet the press release never presented this. It only cited the
unknowns from the first four months of 1955, which were a low 3%, as if that was
the relevant determination of the study.
The press release concluded that no evidence for "flying saucers" was found.[21]
This simply was not true. Although the report contained extensive data and
applied sound scientific techniques, the scientists presented nonsensical
conclusions unrelated to that data. Blue Book Special Report #14 was never made
available to the press or public so they could read it for themselves. The press
summary was conveniently used to further debunk the issue, in support of the
Robertson Panel recommendations. Battelle even kept its involvement secret from
the press and public. After the report was declassified, Hynek attempted to
retrieve the records and working papers of the Battelle study, which the study
had stated were being preserved for reference. The Battelle Memorial Institute -
"an otherwise flawless scientific research organization"�told him they had been
destroyed.[22]

Congress hears from scientists
On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee was pressured by
public reaction to some dramatic UFO sightings to hold a day-long "Symposium on
Unidentified Flying Objects" because "the rigid and exacting discipline of
science should be marshaled to explore the nature of phenomena which reliable
citizens continue to report," according to the then Chairman Representative J.
Edward Roush of Indiana."[23]
The testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist of the Institute of
Atmospheric Physics and Professor of Meteorology at the University of Arizona,
was the most extensive. A respected authority and leader in the field of
atmospheric physics, McDonald had authored highly technical papers for
professional journals. He spent two years examining formerly classified official
file material and radar tracking data on UFOs; interviewing several hundred
witnesses; and conducting in-depth case investigations, details of which were
provided to the Committee.
McDonald told the Committee that no other problem within their jurisdiction
compared to this one. "The scientific community, not only in this country but
throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of
extraordinary scientific importance." McDonald indicated that he leaned towards
the extraterrestrial hypothesis as an explanation, due to "a process of
elimination of other alternative hypotheses, not by arguments based on what I
could call �irrefutable proof.�"[24]
Dr. James Harder, a University of California professor of civil engineering,
explored possible propulsion systems for interstellar travel that could be used
by those UFOs demonstrating incredible maneuvers at high speeds without any
noise. "On the basis of the data and ordinary rules of evidence, as would be
applied in civil or criminal courts, the physical reality of UFOs has been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt," he said. UFOs have demonstrated "scientific
secrets we do not know ourselves."[25]
Dr. Hynek recommended that a Congressional UFO Scientific Board of Inquiry set
up a mechanism for the proper study of UFOs "using all methods available to
modern science" and that international cooperation be sought through the United
Nations.[26]
Despite an apparent positive response from the Committee members, the requests
of the scientists for further action by the Congress never materialized.

The Air Force tries closing the book
In 1966, the Air Force commissioned the University of Colorado to conduct a
definitive, impartial study on all the UFO data accumulated by Project Blue
Book. Headed by physicist Dr. Edward U. Condon, the project was profoundly
flawed right from the start. A memo by project coordinator Robert Low to two
University Deans on August 9, 1966 discussing the pros and cons of taking on the
project was unearthed by two project members who were fired for making it
public.
If the project were to be undertaken, Low laid out the problem:
One has to approach it objectively. That is, one has to admit the possibility
that such things as UFOs exist. It is not respectable to give serious
consideration to such a possibility_one would have to go so far as to consider
the possibility that saucers, if some of the observations are verified, behave
according to a set of physical laws unknown to us. The simple act of admitting
these possibilities just as possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would
loose more in prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain
by undertaking the investigation.
But Low offered a way out:
Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers who, although
they couldn�t possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an
impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The
trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it
would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community,6 would
present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective,
but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.[27]
Condon had no problem making his negative attitudes towards his subject matter
public. In January 1967, he stated in a lecture that, "It is my inclination
right now to recommend that the Government get out of this business. My attitude
right now is that there�s nothing to it." He added "but I�m not supposed to
reach a conclusion for another year..."[28]
In fact, Condon himself did not participate in the analysis of the carefully
researched case studies that made up the bulk of the 1000 pages of the Condon
Report, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," released early in
1969. But his own summary - all that most of the press and public would ever
read - closed the door to any hope of scientific research in the years to come.
Like the Battelle report, the lengthy body of the study provided some excellent
scientific analysis, verifying the reality of the UFO phenomena. Investigator
William K. Hartman, astronomer from the University of Arizona, stated in Case 46
(McMinnville, OR) that, "This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors
investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent
with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic,
disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within
the sight of two witnesses."[29]
Gordon Thayer concluded for one of his cases that, "The apparently rational,
intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin
as the most probable explanation of this sighting."[30]
For another case, he wrote, "The preponderance of evidence indicates the
possibility of a genuine UFO in this case."[31]
Regardless, Condon�s summary stated that, "Nothing has come from the study of
UFOs in the past twenty years that has added to scientific knowledge...further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that
science will be advanced thereby."[32]
And the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed Condon�s recommendation. "A
study of UFOs in general is not a promising way to expand scientific
understanding of the phenomena," it concluded seven weeks later.[33]
Condon added insult to injury by telling The New York Times that his
investigation "was a bunch of damn nonsense," and he was sorry he "got involved
in such foolishness."[34]
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), however, came up
with a different conclusion. After spending a year and a half studying the
actual text of the Condon report, an AIAA panel stated that Condon�s summary did
not reflect the conclusions contained in the report but instead "it discloses
many of his[Condon�s] personal conclusions." The AIAA found no basis in the
report for Condon�s determination that further studies had no scientific value.
These scientists said that, "a phenomena with such a high ratio of unexplained
cases (about 30%) should arouse sufficient curiosity to continue its study."[35]
Twenty-nine percent of the cases studied in the Condon report remain unexplained
to this day.[36]

Is UFO technology beyond existing scientific knowledge?
In conjunction with the Condon report, the Secretary of the Air Force announced
the termination of Project Blue Book, thereby claiming no more official
involvement with the investigation of UFOs. In another slap in the face to
science, his press release declared that no sightings "categorized as
�unidentified� represented technological developments or principles beyond the
range of present scientific knowledge."[37]
However, the existence of advanced technology by UFOs had been well established
through military and pilot reports of their behavior, beginning with the Twining
memo. At the time, the public did not have access to the documentation now
available, which proves the Air Force contradiction.
In 1952, Project Magnet, a classified Canadian Government study on UFO reports
by Wilbert B. Smith released by the Canadian government in the 1970�s, stated
the following:
It can be deduced that the vehicles have the following significant
characteristics. They are a hundred feet or more in diameter; they can travel at
speeds of several thousand miles per hour; they can reach altitudes well above
those which would support conventional aircraft or balloons; and ample power and
force seem to be available for all required maneuvers. Taking these factors into
account, it is difficult to reconcile this performance with the capabilities of
our technology, and unless the technology of some terrestrial nation is much
more advanced than is generally known, we are forced to the conclusion that the
vehicles are probably extra-terrestrial, in spite of our prejudices to the
contrary.
Smith concluded:
Such vehicles of necessity must use a technology considerably in advance of what
we have. It is therefore submitted that the next step in this investigation
should be a substantial effort towards the acquisition of as much as possible of
this technology, which would no doubt be of great value to us.[38]
In 1960, Iowa Congressman Leonard G. Wolf stated his concern in the
Congressional record that UFOs could cause accidental war if mistaken for Soviet
weapons. Gen. L. M. Chassin, NATO coordinator of Allied Air Services, warned
that a global tragedy might occur "if we persist in refusing to recognize the
existence of these UFO�s." Rep. Wolf stated that all defense personnel "should
be told that the UFOs are real and should be trained to distinguish them - by
their characteristic speeds and maneuvers - from conventional planes and
missiles_the American people must be convinced, by documented facts, that the
UFOs could not be Soviet machines." Since UFOs could be distinguished from
Soviet and US conventional aircraft and weaponry by the "documented facts" of
their characteristic speeds and maneuvers, General Chassin was making it clear
that the objects were displaying a technology not yet acquired by any
country.[39]
UFO technology was undoubtedly of interest to those scientists working secretly
with government agencies. In 1976, two F-4 Phantom crews of the Imperial Iranian
Air Force pursued a brilliant UFO, which ejected a second object. While speeding
toward the F-4, the smaller object disabled the jets weapons control system and
communications at the instant the pilot attempted to fire a missile.[40]
UFOs shut down and restarted the Kuwait Oil Company�s pumping equipment in 1978,
prompting the Kuwaiti government to send a committee of "experts" from the
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research to investigate. According to a US State
Department document, "The KISR Committee rejected the notion that the �UFOS�
were espionage devices but remained equivocal about whether they were of
extraterrestrial origin."[41]
The documentation shows that in the decades following the close of Blue Book,
the Air Force continued its UFO investigations behind closed doors, due to
continuing national security concerns[42] - despite the fact that the Air Force
stated in 1969 that Blue Book was closed because "no UFO reported, investigated
and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our
national security."[43]
The Air Force claims that this is still the case today, even though government
agencies refuse to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on the
basis of "national security." Information that has been obtained under FOIA and
even some official government reports themselves contradict the government�s
denial of national security concerns, both before and after the closure of Blue
Book. Recently, military reports and ongoing government investigations in
countries such as England, France, and Chile also provide contradictory
information.[44]
In 1975, U.S. fighter jets attempted to pursue UFOs as recorded in North
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) logs.[45]
Defense Department reports state that UFOs were pursued by U.S.  Air Force
fighter planes after the objects hovered over three supersensitive nuclear
missile launch sites that same year.[46] Iranian and Peruvian air force planes
tried to shoot down unidentified craft in 1976 and 1980.[47] F-16s from Belgium
armed with missiles pursued a UFO in 1990.[48] Certainly these incidents were of
national security concern in each country over which they occurred.
The Air Force press release gave a third reason for its termination of Blue
Book: "There has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as
�unidentified� are extraterrestrial vehicles."[49] No alternative explanation
for a very real phenomena was provided to the public. Many qualified
investigators would take issue with the "no evidence" declaration (as had Air
Force and FBI officials), pointing out that although much more evidence must be
acquired, it is proof that we lack. In any case, scientists are the proper
authorities to make this determination. They must be provided with the necessary
government documents, physical samples and resources to do so.

Science in default
Less than two weeks after the closure of Project Blue Book, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held a symposium on
Unidentified Flying Objects which had been planned for over a year. Astronomers,
physicists, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and The New York Times
science editor presented papers. Again, James McDonald - who had added another
year of intensive study since his presentation before Congress - was the
strongest voice in laying out details of unexplained cases and advocating for
adequate scientific research.
He pointed out the clear weaknesses of the Condon study. Claims of scientific
competence were "the single most serious obstacle that the Air Force has put in
the way of progress" with "the regrettable consequence of denying scientists at
large even a dim notion of the almost incredible nature of some of the more
impressive Air Force-related UFO reports," he said in his landmark paper,
Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations.[50]

President Carter and NASA
Less than a decade later, President Jimmy Carter attempted to reopen the door to
scientific inquiry into unidentified flying objects, partly due to his own
sighting for which he filed a report. In July 1977, his Science Advisor Frank
Press wrote to NASA Administrator Robert Frosch recommending that NASA set up a
"a small panel of inquiry" to see if there were any "new significant findings"
since the Condon Report. "The focal point for the UFO question ought to be
NASA," he said Frosch�s initial response was positive and open, and he began the
process of internal review of the request.
The Air Force, which claimed to have had been out of the UFO business since
1969, seemed to have some concerns. Colonel Charles E. Senn, Chief of the
Community Relations Division at the Air Force, stated in a September letter to
NASA�s Lieutenant General Duward L. Crow, "I sincerely hope that you are
successful in preventing a reopening of UFO investigations."[51]
NASA eventually turned down the White House request from the President�s office.
Frosch said that NASA needed "bona fide physical evidence from credible
sources." Due to the absence of such evidence, he said that, "we have not been
able to devise a sound scientific procedure for investigating these phenomena."
Therefore, no steps would be taken.
Dr. Richard C. Henry, professor of astrophysics at Johns Hopkins University, was
then Deputy Director of NASA�s Astrophysics Division and privy to some of the
decision making process. In a 1988 essay for the Journal of Scientific
Exploration, Henry takes issue with Frosch�s claim of "an absence of tangible or
physical evidence."[52]He says there was an abundance of relevant evidence at
the time.[53]
Henry says Frosch�s statement denying the existence of a sound scientific
protocol was also false. "The National Academy of Sciences endorsed the Condon
study of UFO�s, and specifically endorsed their procedures (protocol). It hardly
does for us to say no sound protocol is possible!" he wrote in a memo to NASA
Space Science Administrator Noel Hinners. "The point is, that to be meaningful
the protocol must cover the possibility that the UFO phenomenon is due in part
to intelligences far beyond our own."
Although he outlined some possibilities, Henry was not able to draw a definite
conclusion as to why NASA turned down the request from the President of the
United States.[54]

Raising the issue at the United Nations
Between 1975 and 1978, Sir Eric M. Gairy, Prime Minister of Grenada, proposed to
the United Nations General Assembly that the UN establish "an agency or a
department of the United Nations for undertaking, coordinating, and
disseminating the results of research into Unidentified Flying Objects and
related phenomena."[55]
With his associate Dr. Jacques Vallee and Lt Col. Larry Coyne, a US Army pilot
who almost collided with a UFO in December, 1978, Hynek asked in a speech to the
UN that it "provide a clearing house procedure whereby the work already going on
globally can be brought together in a serious, concentrated approach to this
most outstanding challenge to current science." He pointed out that UFOs had
been reported in 133 member states of the UN and that there existed 1,300 cases
where "there appears physical evidence of the immediate presence of the UFO."
Hynek highlighted a new French study, conducted by scientists from many
disciplines in cooperation with the Gendarmerie under the auspices of the Centre
National d��tudes Spatiales (CNES), the French equivalent of NASA. The case
studies were "exemplary and far superior to the previous studies in other
countries_the implications for science and the public at large of this French
investigation are profound," he said.
Hynek�s remarks reflected the sad state of affairs for many American scientists
who dared to take an interest in UFOs. These individuals were associated with
"large and prestigious scientific organizations, both government and private"
which "are silent or even officially derisive about the UFO phenomenon," Hynek
told the United Nations. Those with "intimate knowledge of the UFO phenomenon
are restrained by organizational policy to remain officially silent about their
interest and in private work with UFO matters."[56]
Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper also asked the United Nations for "a top level,
coordinated program to scientifically collect and analyze data from all over
earth_"[57] But like the Congressional hearings of 1968, the proposals never
went anywhere.

Recent developments and high-level foreign interest
Regardless of the consistent disregard by key U.S. institutions, the UFO problem
would not go away. In the 1980�s, two extraordinary cases involving the landing
of objects leaving physical evidence were documented by military personnel and
scientists in England[58] and France.[59]
"This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not the
subject of rubbishing by tabloid newspapers," said England�s former Chief of the
Defense Staff and five-star Admiral Lord Hill-Norton in 2000. He was responding
to his government�s public dismissal of the multiple-witnessed landing of a
glowing triangular craft that left three depressions at Bentwaters Air Force
base in 1980.[60] Deputy Base Commander Lt.  Col. Charles I. Halt provided a
detailed description of the objects, the landing, and the physical evidence in a
classified Air Force memo.[61]
Events in the U.S. were also significant, although barely noticed by the media.
In March 1997, hundreds of people across Arizona reported seeing huge triangular
objects, hovering silently in the night sky. One series of lights were caught on
videotape. Following a thwarted effort by Phoenix City Councilwoman Frances
Barwood to investigate, a U.S District court demanded a search for information
from the Department of Defense about these aircraft. Despite irrefutable
documentation of the event, DoD responded that it could not find anything about
the existence of the triangles. This heightened citizen�s fears: How could our
government not know about something huge flying low over major population
centers?[62] Even Senator John McCain acknowledged that this incident, known as
the "Phoenix Lights," has "never been fully explained."[63]
In 2000, four policemen at different locations in St. Claire County, Illinois,
witnessed a similar craft exhibiting extreme rapid motion, again unacknowledged
by nearby Scott Air Force Base or the Federal Aviation Administration.[64]
Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford
University and emeritus director of Stanford�s Center for Space Science and
Astrophysics, has taken the lead in reactivating a scientific evaluation of the
UFO phenomenon. He conducted a 1975 survey of the American Astronomical Society
and found that 75% of the respondents wished to see more information on the
subject published in scientific journals. Due to the fact that the journals
rejected papers on the UFO problem out of hand, Sturrock founded the Society for
Scientific Exploration (SSE) and its Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE),
which began publication in 1987. With associates in more than 40 countries, the
JSE provides a forum for the presentation and debate of topics that are not
otherwise discussed in scientific societies.[65]
Sturrock is perhaps one of the most eminent scientists ever to apply the
conventional scientific method to the UFO phenomenon.  He won the 1986 Hale
Prize in Solar Physics from the American Astronomical Society, the Arctowski
medal in 1990 from the National Academy of Sciences, and the 1992 Space Sciences
Award from the 40,000 member American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
for his "major contribution to the fields of geophysics, solar physics and
astrophysics, leadership in the space science community, and dedication to the
pursuit of knowledge."
In 1997, Sturrock initiated and directed a four-day workshop at the Pocantico
Conference Center in Tarrytown, New York, funded by philanthropist Laurance
Rockefeller. The purpose of the conference was to rigorously review purported
physical evidence associated with UFO reports, in order to assess whether the
further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is likely to help solve
the UFO problem.
Seven investigators presented cases with photographic evidence; luminosity
estimates; radar evidence; interference with automobile functioning;
interference with aircraft equipment; apparent gravitational or inertial
effects; ground traces; injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on
witnesses; and analysis of debris.
A review panel of nine distinguished scientists from diverse fields (mostly
"decidedly skeptical agnostics" who did not have prior involvement with UFOs,
according to Sturrock) reviewed the presentations and provided a carefully
worded summary. The panel was "not convinced that any of the evidence involved
currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an
extraterrestrial intelligence." Continued careful evaluation of UFO reports was
recommended. "New data, scientifically acquired and analyzed" could provide
useful information allowing physical scientists "to contribute to the resolution
of the UFO problem."
In contradiction to the Condon summary, the panel concluded that the UFO problem
is not simple, and "whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the
possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these
observations."[66]

Pilots continue to report sightings of unidentified aerial
phenomena
A few years later, Dr. Richard Haines, a retired senior aerospace scientist from
NASA-Ames Research Center and formerly NASA�s Chief of the Space Human Factors
Office, authored a report documenting over one hundred cases of pilot encounters
with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) that raise safety concerns, including
fifty-six near misses.
Haines had spent thirty years developing a 3,400 case, international database of
first hand sightings by commercial, military and private pilots. His independent
study "Aviation Safety in America - A Previously Neglected Factor" also draws on
FAA, NTSB and NASA files.[67]
With an international team of scientists and aviation specialists, he recently
founded the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP),
which facilitates pilot reporting and studies a wide range of aerial phenomena
impacting aviation safety.
Pilots represent the world�s most experienced and credible observers of air
traffic with extensive specialized training. In the study, they report sightings
of varied geometric forms displaying colors and lights and conducting high-speed
maneuvers that are inconsistent with known aircraft or natural phenomena.
Pilots and crew members report that the objects approached and paced their
aircraft at relatively near distances, disabling on board instrumentation.
Sometimes speeding objects narrowly avoided a head-on collision by a sudden,
90-degree turn. On other occasions, pilots made sudden, evasive changes in their
flight paths due to the object�s proximity or dynamic behavior.  Cockpit
distraction is always a concern "when the crew is faced with an extremely
bizarre, unexpected and prolonged luminous and/or solid phenomena cavorting near
their aircraft," says the report.
Haines says that the hundreds of UAP reports he has analyzed, some dating back
to the 1940�s, "appear to suggest that they are associated with a very high
degree of intelligence, deliberate flight control, and advanced energy
management."
The study documents the ridicule and "psychological negative feedback system"
that pilots have faced since the 1950�s due the official debunking policy. Most
pilots never file reports at all.[68]
In 1986, veteran Japan Airlines Captain Kenju Terauchi and his crew encountered
a huge craft over Alaska reported in the media and investigated by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA).  "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in
front of our face, shooting off lights," reported Terauchi. "The inside cockpit
shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Terauchi�s reporting of the
incident resulted in his temporary dismissal, despite the FAA determination that
he was stable, competent and professional.[69]
John Callahan, former Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch
of the FAA in Washington, D.C., has in his possession the radar recorded data,
air traffic control voice transcripts, FAA report, and computer printouts of the
Terauchi event. He says he attended a meeting about the incident with the FBI,
the CIA, and President Reagan�s Scientific Study team in which he was told,
"this event never happened, we were never here and you are all sworn to
secrecy."[70]
"I saw a UFO chase a Japanese 747 across the sky for over half an hour on radar.
And it�s faster than anything that I know of in our Government," said the high
level FAA official in 2001.  "It still bothers me that I�ve seen all this, I
know all this, and I�m walking around with the answer, and nobody wants to ask
the question to get the answer."[71]
International openness vs. U.S. secrecy
Other countries, whose governments are open about their interest in getting the
answer, have challenged the policy of official secrecy in the United States.
The French space agency CNES has been the only government agency to conduct a
consistent, non-military investigation into UFO incidents for over twenty years.
It�s project first called GEPAN[13] (Groupe d�Etudes des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux
Non-identifies) was renamed SEPRA (Service d�Expertise des Phenomenes de
Rentrees Atmospheriques) in 1988.[72]
In 1999, four-star General Bernard Norlain, former commander of the French
Tactical Air Force, and other retired generals and admirals from the French
Institute of Higher Studies for National Defense; Jean Jacques Velasco, head of
SEPRA; Andre Lebeau, former head of CNES, and a team of scientists and
engineers, released an historic study titled UFOs and Defense:
What Should We Prepare For? The group called themselves the COMETA, meaning
"Committee for In-depth Studies."[73]
The group spent three years examining nearly 500 international aeronautical
sightings and radar/visual cases, and previously undisclosed pilots� reports.
Their study drew on data from official sources, government authorities, and the
Air Forces of other countries.
Confirming the aviation safety concerns of the Haines study, one multi-witness
case presented by the study involved a 1994 Air France sighting of an object
that instantaneously disappeared, as recorded on radar; another described a 1995
Aerolineas Argentinas Boeing 727 encounter with a luminous object that
extinguished airport lights as the plane prepared to land.
The authors� note that about 5 percent of sightings on which there is solid
documentation cannot be easily attributed to earthly sources, such as secret
military exercises. This 5 percent seem "to be completely unknown flying
machines with exceptional performances that are guided by a natural or
artificial intelligence," they say. Some scientists have developed theoretical
models for travel from one solar system to another and for technology that could
be used to propel the vehicles, the report points out.[74]
The best explanation is "the extraterrestrial hypothesis," the report concludes.
Although not categorically proven, "strong presumptions exist in its favor and
if it is correct, it is loaded with significant consequences."
To address the problem, the COMETA urged international action.  It recommended
that France establish "sectorial cooperation agreements with interested European
and foreign countries" on the matter of UFOs. The European Union should
undertake diplomatic action with the United States "exerting useful pressure to
clarify this crucial issue, which must fall within the scope of political and
strategic alliances." The group openly challenged US denial of the reality of
UFOs.[75]
In 1997, the Chilean government formed the Committee for the Study of Anomalous
Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA) under the direction of the Ministerial Department of
Civil Aeronautics (DGAC), the equivalent of our FAA. Official observations of
anomalous aerial phenomena at a remote Chilean airport prompted this action,
following official acknowledgement that unidentified objects were flying over
national territory.
The agency uses "serious, objective and scientific analysis to determine if
these phenomena have meant any risk to the security of aerial operations," says
CEFAA executive secretary Gustavo Rodr�guez Navarro, a retired air traffic
controller.[76]
Like the members of the COMETA, Ricardo Bermudez Sanhuesa, General of Chile�s
Air Brigade and President of the CEFAA, believes that international cooperation
is important "to provide an incentive for universities and scientific
organizations to work in multidisciplinary teams in all the branches of [14]
this science" and to establish "a uniform method of investigation processes and
analysis." General Bermudez says that CEFAA contacted the United States
government on two occasions but was ignored each time.[77]
Peru has also begun conducting official, yet public, UFO investigations. In
December 2001, the Peruvian Air Force created the Office for the Investigation
of Anomalous Activity, under the direction of Air Force Commander Jose Luis
Chamorro.
"There are several mysteries that we believe are highly important and which
merit our full attention," Chamorro says.  "If we can arrive at definitive
conclusions, our work will be highly beneficial to Peru and all of humanity."
Unexplainable events in the sky are frequent in Peru, Chamorro says. Out of
hundreds of calls coming into his office every month, about a dozen are credible
sightings with no easy explanation. Chamorro told the Miami Herald last
September that a video taken in Chulucanas, Piura in late 2001 shows a huge ship
sitting in the sky for nearly two hours. "The ship made no noise and did not
move. You can see the shape, which includes even windows," he said.[78]

Scientists call for systematic investigation
Given the irrefutable evidence of extraordinary objects in the skies around
planet Earth, and the high standing of those who have requested further
scientific investigation, what stands in the way? And what can be done to
overcome the obstacles?
According to Peter Sturrock, scientists face a lack of sustained funding for
research; harbor a false assumption that there is no data or evidence; have a
perception that the topic is "not respectable;" and believe that the Condon
report settled the question. Despite overwhelming public demand - which often
drives scientific research - scientists simply aren�t motivated.
Sturrock says that the single biggest obstacle to the study of UFOs has been the
paucity of available physical evidence. To remedy this situation, he proposes
improving techniques for the retrieval of physical evidence through field
investigations and its laboratory analysis; planned experiments in the lab
testing physical effects; systematic cataloguing of case reports and a search
for patterns in the data; and the development of theories based on the facts
using scientific inference.
"In principle, we can prove a hypothesis not only by finding strong evidence in
its favor, but also by finding strong evidence against every other possibility,"
he says.[79] This is the approach taken by the French COMETA group in the
determination of their hypothesis in 1999.
The need for physical evidence points to the critical nature of a renewed FOIA
initiative into Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly, the secret Air Force
units which retrieved objects of unknown origin, as revealed in government
documents released in the 1990�s. So far, scientists have been denied the
fragments and the final determinations of these investigations.[80]
Because the UFO problem makes them uncomfortable, scientists are prone to
interpreting the issue theoretically and then giving a theoretical reason for
dismissing it. For example, Astronomer Francis Drake stated in 1998 that if UFO
reports are real, they must be due to extraterrestrial spacecraft. However,
interstellar travel is impossible, therefore the reports must be discounted.
This argument boils down to: It cannot happen; therefore it does not happen. "In
normal scientific research, observational evidence takes precedence over
theory," says Sturrock, "if it does happen, it can happen."[81]
Computer scientist and astrophysicist Jacques Vallee, who has traveled the world
studying the UFO problem for decades and was a close associate of Hynek, points
out that a key problem is that scientists need journals and "unbiased venues"
other than JSE to debate this increasingly deep and complex problem.[82] "New
radical hypotheses may be needed to study the problem, beyond the limited
polarization between skepticism and belief in �extraterrestrials,�" he says.[83]
Dr. Bernard Haisch, Director of the California Institute for Physics and
Astrophysics and author of over a hundred published papers, agrees. "I propose
that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of
true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the
skeptic." Haisch was the editor of the JSE for twelve years.  "Any scientist who
has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence
should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific
pronouncements," he says.  "To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is
one thing.  To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless
is another. That is not science. Do your homework!"[84]
The COMETA believes the central barrier to scientific progress lies in the lap
of the United States. The world�s superpower ignores the research and ridicules
the UFO phenomenon. "Only increasing pressure from public opinion, possibly
supported by the results of independent researchers, by more or less calculated
disclosures, or by a sudden rise in UFO manifestations, might perhaps induce
U.S. leaders and persons of authority to change their stance," the group states.
The French group notes that conventional scientists are burdened by the
prevailing concept of "anthropocentric humanism"- the belief that man is "the
best nature can produce in this small corner of the galaxy" and remains the sole
controller of his destiny. To acknowledge the possible existence of beings
outside our planet with vastly superior technological capabilities and
scientific understanding is both "frightening and unacceptable" and would leave
us feeling infantile. "The social position of the scientific elite would be
considerably compromised," their report says.[85]
A more contemporary - perhaps radical by some standards - perspective is
provided by Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Richard C. Henry. "We humans are
newborn babes_our Earth is merely a minute portion of an inconceivably vast
universe [of which] we are only an utterly unimportant element," he says. It is
possible that other civilizations are visiting us, for reasons we can�t
conceive. He has a message to the scientists of our planet: "Collect and collate
evidence of anomalous phenomena!  What kind of a civilization would not collect
and collate evidence of anomalous phenomena? Only a foolish and short-sighted
civilization indeed!"[86]
It�s time for a scientific study of UFOs
Despite intense public interest and the weight of fifty years of evidence
provided by scientists, pilots, military officers and government agencies around
the world, there has been no independent, federally financed scientific research
conducted on these phenomena since the flawed and biased 1969 Condon report.  We
are long overdue for an ongoing, comprehensive study in the United States that
leading scientists have been requesting for decades.
The national security argument is no longer acceptable as a justification for
U.S. government withholding of reports of events decades old. If sources and
methods need protecting, this is legitimate. If information on Soviet objects or
man-made technology is sensitive, this is also understandable. Neither of these
aspects is of concern to the matter at hand. Scientists must be able to access
all other information and any physical samples in the possession of U.S.
government agencies. We have evidence of objects and bizarre anomalies in our
skies that appear not to be natural or man made. This is a remarkable state of
affairs. Clearly, it is worthy of the highest level of scientific exploration.
American scientists stand ready and waiting to take this on, if only the
resources are provided. The public appears ready to support the research with
its tax dollars. It is clear that the policies and attitudes of certain
government officials and agencies must change so that the investigation into
these mysterious phenomena can "pass through nature�s looking glass" along with
the other great discoveries of contemporary science.


Notes

1 Overbye, Dennis; "More Sci Than Fi, Physicists Create Antimatter" New York
Times, Sept. 9, 2002.
2 Roper Number: C205-008232 , "Americans Beliefs and personal Experiences, UFOs
and Extraterrestrial Life," September 2002 by RoperASW via OmniTel, on 1,021
male and female adults.
3 Headquarters 4602D AISS, Draft "Guide to Identification, Unidentified Flying
Objects" Date unknown. Contained in Clifford S. Stone, UFOs are Real (SPI Books,
1997).
4 For starters: Edward J.Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1956); J. Allen Hynek, The UFO Experience: A
Scientific Inquiry (Marlowe & Company, NY, 1972,1998); David Jacobs, The UFO
Controversy in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975); the files
of Project Blue Book, available through the National Archives or in Brad
Steiger, editor Project Blue Book: The Top Secret UFO Findings Revealed,
(Balantine Books, NY,1976); Clifford E.  Stone, UFOs are Real (SPI Books, 1997);
Peter A. Sturrock, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner
Books, NY, 1999); UFOs and Defense: What are we prepared for? The French
Association COMETA, study from the Institute of Higher Studies for National
Defence, July 1999.
5 The French Association COMETA, study from the Institute of Higher Studies for
National Defence, July 1999, estimates 5% of sightings are true UFOs. Other
estimates are higher. In 1985, J.  Allen Hynek put the figure at 20% (interview
by Dennis Stacy.) Peter Sturrock points out that 29% of the cases in the Condon
report of 1969 remain unidentified today. It is impossible to know the exact
figure.
6 General Nathan F. Twining to Commander, Air Material Command, "AMC Opinion
concerning �Flying Discs�" 23 September 1947 (Contained in Edwin U. Condon,
Project Director Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1969) p.
894-95.
7 Ruppelt, pp.62-63; Hynek UFO Experience p.173.
8 W.P. Keay, FBI Memorandum "Flying Saucers" July 29, 1952 (contained in Bruce
Maccabee, UFO FBI Connection: The Secret History of the Government�s Cover-Up
(Llewellyn Publications, MN 2000).
9 W.P. Keay, FBI Memorandum "Flying Saucers" October 27, 1952 (Maccabee, Ibid).
10 H. Marshall Chadwell, memorandum for Director of Central Intelligence, Dec 2
1952.
11 H. Marshall Chadwell, memo for Director of Central Intelligence "Flying
Saucers" 11 Sept. 1952, p.3-4.
12 "Unidentified Flying Objects" 4 Dec 1952 IAC-M-90.
13 H. Marshall Chadwell, memorandum for Director of Central Intelligence
"Unidentified Flying Objects" Dec. 10 1952.
14 F .C. Durant, Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified
Flying Objects, Convened by Office of Scientific Intelligence, CA January 14-18,
1953.
15 Hynek, UFO Report p.23.
16 J Allen Hynek, "Special Report on Conferences with Astronomers on Identified
Flying Objects" to Air Technical Intelligence Center, Wright Patterson Air Force
Base, August 6, 1952, p.18, 20.
17 Hynek, UFO Experience p.169.
18 Ruppelt pp 160-167; Peter Carlson, "Alien Armada!50 Years
Ago, Unidentified Flying Objects From Way Beyond the Beltway
Seized the Capital�s Imagination" Washington Post, July 21, 2002
19 Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 "Analysis of Unidentified Flying
Objects," Project No. 10073 (Air technical Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio, 5 May 1955); Hynek, UFO Report, p.272.
20 Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 "Analysis of Unidentified Flying
Objects."
21 Air Force Releases Study on Unidentified Flying Objects, Department of
Defense, Office of Public Information, Washington DC, No. 1053-55 Oct. 25, 1955.
22 Ibid. p. 274-275.
23 Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of
Representatives, Ninetieth Congress "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects"
July 29, 1968 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 1968) p.1.
24 Ibid. p. 32; 83.
25 Ibid. p. 121;124.
26 Ibid. p. 14-15.
27 Robert J. Low, memo to E.James Archer and Thurston E. Manning "Some Thoughts
on the UFO Project," August 9, 1966. Contained in Marcia S. Smith with George D.
Havas, revisions and updates, Science Policy Research Division, The UGO Enigma
Congressional Research Service, June 20, 1983; Appendix C.
28 John Fuller, "Flying Saucer Fiasco," Look, May 14, 1968
29 Condon, Edward U., Project Director and Daniel S. Gillmor, Editor Scientific
Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Bantam, NY, 1969) p.407.
30 Ibid. p. 164.
31 Ibid. p. 248.
32 Ibid p. 1.
33 Review of the University of Colorado Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by
a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences, 1969.
34 "Air Force Closes Study of UFO�s" New York Times, Dec. 18, 1969.
35 Kuettner, J.P. et al "UFO: An Appraisal of the Problem, A Statement by the
UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA" Astronautics and Aeronautics, 8, No. 11.
36 Peter Sturrock., interview for "Out of the Blue," documentary
film produced and directed by James Fox, Tim Coleman, Boris
Zuboff, 2000
37 Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Release No.
1077-69 "Air Force to Terminate Project Blue Book" Washington, DC December 17,
1969.
38 Wilbert B. Smith "Project Magnet Report" (Canadian Department of
Communications file 5010-4 vol.5) 1952, pp.10-11 (contained in Stone, UFOs are
Real).
39 Leslie Kean,"UFO theorists gain support abroad, but repression at home,"
Boston Globe, May 21, 2000.
40 JCS Communication Center of the USDAQ Tehran Message 230630Z, September 1976,
released through the Department of Defense.  Also, Henry S. Shields "Now You See
It, Now You Don�t" Unites States Air Force Security Service, MIJI Quarterly
Report 3-78, October 1978.
41 US State Department Cable, Jan. 29, 1979; (contained in Stone).
42 General Carroll H.Bolender, USAF memo, October 20, 1969.
43 AF News Release No. 1077-69, op cit.
44 England: Nick Pope, former Ministry of Defense official, Open Skies, Closed
Minds (Dell, 2000) and interview with former Ministry of Defense Chief Lord-Hill
Norton for "Out of the Blue" produced and directed by James Fox, Tim Coleman,
Boris Zuboff.  France: see COMETA report "UFO�s and Defense: What Are we
Prepared For?" and work of SEPRA at CNES. Chile: work of CEFAA.
45 24th NORAD Region Senior Director�s Log, November 1975; NORAD Command
Director�s Log, November, 1975.
46 Ward Sinclair and Art Harris, "UFOs visited U.S. bases, reports say"
Washington Post, 1979.
47 Iran: JCS Communication Center and Sheilds, op.cit. Peru:
Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff message, June 3 1980. A round UFO
initially hovering over air base was chased by an SU-22 and fired upon at close
range but the UFO out-ran the plane.
48 Authorized by Belgian Ministry of Defense, Paris-Match, July 5, 1990.
Radar-images of UFO of March 30 and 31, 1990.  Interviews with Colonel De
Brouwer, Chief of Operations, Belgium Air Force. In three cases, when pilots
achieved radar lock on with UFO, UFO drastically changed its behavior with a
sudden dive at very high speed with no sonic boom.
49 AF News Release No. 1077-69, op cit.
50 Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, editors UFO�s - A Scientific Debate (Norton
Library by arrangement with Cornell University Press, 1974).
51 Charles E. Senn, letter to Duward L. Crow, September 1, 1977
52 Richard C. Henry, "UFOs and NASA" Journal of Scientific Exploration (Vol.2,
No. 2 pp.93-142, 1988); letters (except Senn) included in appendices.
53 A 1968 State Department telegram (released under a FOIA request for Project
Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly) verifies that samples from objects of unknown
origin were sent to NASA.  It states that divers found a metal "dome-shaped
object" nose down on the ocean floor off Cape Town, "scorched under tremendous
heat."
According to the document, NASA found that the object consisted
of "almost pure aluminum" but could offer no "clue" as to its
origin or function
54 Henry, op.cit.
55 Smith with Havas, The UGO Enigma Congressional Research Service op. cit. p.
100.
56 J. Allen Hynek, speech to the United Nations, Nov. 27th 1978.
Astrophycisist and field investigator Jacques Vallee and Lt Col.  Larry Coyne, a
US Army pilot who almost collided with a UFO, also presented statements.
57 L. Gordon Cooper, letter to Ambassador Griffith, Mission of
Grenada to the United Nations, Nov. 9, 1978
58 USAF Lt. Col. Charles I. Halt, Bentwaters Base Commander to British Ministry
of Defence, memorandum "Unexplained Lights" Jan.13, 1980.
59 Jean-Jacques Velasco, "Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces:
The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case" Journal of Scientific Exploration (Vol. 4,
No. 1, 1990) Investigated by GEPAN which later became SEPRA of CNES. See also
the French COMETA report "UFOs and Defense: What Are We Prepared For?" July,
1999.
60 Lord Hill Norton, interview for "Out of the Blue " op.cit.
For a first hand account of this incident, see
61 Charles I. Halt, Lt. Col, USAF, Memo, Department of the Air
Force, Headquarters 81st Combat Support Group, "Unexplained
Lights," Jan. 13, 1981
62 Associated Press, "Judge orders U.S. to provide additional data in UFO case"
Feb. 17, 2000; Kean, Boston Globe, op.cit.  Hynek�s 1985 essay "The Roots of
Complacency" provided at the end of this report describes a similar series of
events that occurred in New York State in the 1980�s.
63 FoxNews, Feb 29, 2000.
64 Stephanie Simon, Folks Know Truth Is Out There, but Flying Object Is Still
Unidentified" Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2000; Heather Ratcliffe, "UFO
sighting brings media attention, investigative team to Southern Illinois"
Post-Dispatch, January 12, 2000.
65 Peter A. Sturrock, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence
(Warner Books, NY, 1999).
66 Ibid. Members of the Scientific Review Panel: V. R. Eshleman (Co-Chair), T.
E. Holzer (Co-Chair), J. R. Jokipii, F. Louange, H. J. Melosh, J. J. Papike, G.
Reitz, C. R. Tolbert, and B.  Veyret. Investigators: R. F. Haines, I. von
Ludwiger, M.
Rodeghier, J. F. Schuessler, E. Strand, M. D. Swords, J. F.
Vallee, and J-J. Velasco
67 Richard F. Haines, "Aviation Safety in America - A Previously Neglected
Factor" NARCAP Report 01-2000, October 15, 2000; also see Leslie Kean, "Pilot
encounters with UFOs: New study challenges secrecy and denial," The Providence
Journal, May 3, 2001.
68 Ibid.
69 UPI, "JAL Airliner Sighting Over Alaska," 1986; For a
detailed research report with additional references on this case
see Bruce Maccabee, "The Fantastic Flight Of JAL 1628"
70 John Callahan, "UFO incident involving a Japanese Boeing 747-- November
1986;" presentation at George Washington University symposium, Nov. 8, 2002.
71 John Callahan, interview for Disclosure (Crossing Point Inc, 2001).
72 See Sturrock "The GEPAN/SEPRA Project" by F. Louange and J.
J. Velasco, p. 131-136.
73 COMETA (an association) "UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?" First
released in French in a special issue of the magazine VSD, July 1999. Other
members are: General Denis Letty of the Air Force, former auditor (FA) of IHEDN,
General Bruno Lemoine of the Air Force (FA of IHEDN); Admiral Marc Merlo (FA of
IHEDN); Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (FA of
IHEDN); General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (FA of IHEDN); Denis
Blancher, Chief National Police superintendant at the Ministry ot the Interior;
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the national "corps des Mines", Research
Director at the "National Office of Aeronautical Research" (ONERA); General
Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, engineer for armaments. Other contributors
include Francois Louange, President of Fleximage, specialist of photo analysis;
General Joseph Domange of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of
auditors at IHEDN.
74 Ibid. This has been established by numerous contemporary physicists, such as
best-selling authors Dr. Brian Greene and Dr. Michio Kaku.
75 Ibid.
76 Gustavo Rodr�guez Navarro, personal interview with Leslie Kean, Dec 31, 2000.
77 Ricardo Bermudez Sanhuesa, personal interview with Leslie Kean, Jan. 31,
2001. According to Bermudez, in 1998, the CEFAA contacted the U.S. Embassy in
Chile expressing the Committee�s interest in working with a U.S. agency "to
share experiences, policies, procedures, etc. regarding this topic." In July,
2000, the CEFAA sent the U.S. Embassy a request for consultation with the
Pentagon. "Both requests went unanswered," General Bermudez said.
78 Lucien O. Chauvin, "Peruvians seek discovery and profit in UFOs" Miami
Herald, Sept. 28, 2002.
79 Sturrock, op.cit.,p. 163.
80 SCI FI Channel, Press release, Oct. 22, 2002. "The SCI FI Channel has joined
with John Podesta, President Clinton�s former chief of staff, to call for more
declassification of government records. As part of its advocacy effort, SCI FI
is backing a Freedom of Information Act initiative to obtain government records
on cases involving retrieval of objects of unknown origin by the secret Air
Force operations Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly. Assisting SCI FI in
its FOIA effort is the Washington, D.C. law firm of Lobel, Novins and Lamont."
81 Sturrock, op. cit., p.160.
82 Jacques Vallee, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception (Ballantine
Books, NY, 1991) p.284.
83 Jacques Vallee, "Report from the Field: Scientific Issues in the UFO
Phenomenon," presentation at George Washington University symposium, Nov. 8,
2002. For two papers by Vallee, see JSE Vol. 12, no. 3 (1998) "Estimates of
Optical Power Output in six cases of unexplained aerial objects with defined
luminosity characteristics," pp. 345-358 and "Physical Analyses in ten cases of
unexplained aerial objects with material samples," pp. 359-376.


84 Bernard Haisch, message on www.ufoskeptic.org "An Information
site on the UFO phenomenon by and for professional scientists."
September, 2002.

85 COMETA, op.cit.

86 Richard C. Henry, "Human Beings in the Galaxy: _or Babes in
the Woods," presentation at George Washington University
symposium, Nov. 8, 2002.


Appendix

"The Roots of Complacency"
An unpublished essay by Dr. J. Allen Hynek

Dr. J. Allen Hynek left this essay on a diskette at the home of his friend Dr.
Willy Smith on August 30, 1985. At the time, he was investigating the Hudson
Valley "boomerang" sightings in New York, and this was a draft preface for a
book about them. A few weeks after writing this piece, Hynek went into surgery.
His health rapidly declined in the ensuing months, and he died in April, 1986.
The investigation into the Hudson Valley sightings was published in the 1987
book NIGHT SIEGE, authored by Hynek, Bob Pratt and Philip J. Imbrogno. As
detailed in the book, the first incident was reported on December 31, 1982, and
the sightings continued until the book�s publication, with a concentration of
incidents during the summer of 1984. "The Roots of Complacency" (as Hynek
himself titled it) is quite different from the preface to NIGHT SIEGE in its
passion and intimate, unedited style. In what appears to be his last essay,
Hynek questions the underlying cause of the very dilemma that this paper
addresses.
L.K.

Something truly astonishing happened..... Not far from New York City, along the
Hudson Valley, as hundreds of astonished people looked up, many driving along
the Taconic Parkway, they saw something no one had ever seen before.

Some called it a "Space-ship from outer space" (for want of anything better) but
it was generally described by numbers of competent, professional persons as
startlingly brilliant lights, in the form of a "V," or Boomerang, silent,
slowly-moving, and very large close-by object. It has often popularly been
called the "Westchester (County) Boomerang."
The world has never known about this, even though the event happened not once
but several times, and over the course of several years. To all intents and
purposes, this was a non-event. The media across the world has remained dumb.
Local papers, radios and TV�s, it is true, did momentarily carry spots along
with the daily news, but there the news just vanished.

How is it possible that in the United States, where even trivial events are
often flashed across the world, only one TV and radio network carried an account
of this utterly astounding event?  Far, far lesser stories are spewed forth
across the world!
Could it possibly be that the whole thing just never happened?  No: many times
there was good, but extremely local, media coverage; many hundreds have
personally attested to us, and to many others, that the "Westchester Boomerang"
was most undeniably, very truly real to them. Furthermore, many witnesses at a
given time were geographically separate, and unknown to each 24 other. Cars
along the Taconic Parkway, a well traveled highway, stopped, and passengers
looked in amazement, many frightened and bewildered at the spectacle.

Police department "blotters" proved that many calls came to several local police
stations, and we have tape recordings of a number of the police involved. The
Boomerang was undeniably real; it was not a chimera!

Yes, something astonishing transpired, but was no one "minding the store," was
everyone asleep at the switch? What about law enforcement agencies (whose duty
is certainly to alert and assist when something amazing is afoot); what about
civilian and military personnel?

When hundreds of largely professional, affluent people, in suburban areas, are
astonished, awestruck, and many frightened by what they could only regard as a
very bizarre event, would this not at least warrant and bring forth some comment
from the nation�s media? And what about law officers, government officials
and... what of the FAA which supposedly monitors the airwaves over which the
"Boomerang" repeatedly flew, and thus constituted a serious hazard, especially
over the Taconic Parkway?

And what of scientists, to whom these events should have been of breathtaking
scientific concern? But nothing... except, oh yes, a writer so inept at his task
that not once did he check, even briefly, the voluminous tapes and other
material amassed by the present authors: a remarkable example of investigative
reporting.

His conclusion: the Boomerang was caused by nothing more than a flight of small
planes flying in formation, a totally untenable conclusion in view of the facts.
It would appear that we really have TWO astounding stories, rather than just
one... different but related... and equally incomprehensible: the story of the
low-flying luminous Boomerang (in itself which could rank high in the annals of
science fiction... if it were science fiction!) and the second, a totally
unaccountable dereliction of duty (and there seems to be no other word for it),
a complete indifference to accountability.

It was a malady which appeared to plunge all who encountered it, EXCEPT the
witnesses, into a deadly stupor. Such a malady, or perhaps a virulent virus of
apathy and indifference to duty, could immobilize cities and a whole country. Of
course, we don�t know what the Boomerang was really about, for: the Police and
other law enforcement officers were derelict and failed in their duty to assist
the many who called [in] fear and danger, as well as in awe and wonder.  The FAA
utterly failed to be concerned for air safety, flight rules, navigation lights,
when told that some utterly strange and possibly menacing object was cruising
close over streets and houses.
the Military was derelict by not attending to public safety and matters of
National Defense (the country could have been subtly invaded!)
the Scientists failed to uphold their "Hippocratic" oath of science: they were
derelict in following the quest [of] an outstanding mystery.
the media, well, where were they? Truly derelict. Always avid news hounds,
rushing to their typewriters or microphones to rush the news to the world (good,
bad and trivial), but where were they? Hardly any of the 50 States heard the
Boomerang story.

Why? Utterly indifferent and apathetic? If so, why?

Of the two stories, that of the Boomerang is by far the more directly told.
Bizarre and fantastic though it may be (and is) it merely needs competent
retelling. The facts are on record.  From the hundreds of cassette tapes in the
thousands of statements made by witnesses, the Boomerang is a matter of record.
But the second story, well, that is another matter.

This story is not at all directly told. Here there are no cassette tapes, no
clear cut descriptions, and no policeman, no scientist, no military man, no
media person, no FAA has recorded why they were derelict. We can only infer, as
one might infer from the pages of history. We can only deduce and play
detective. And we must try, for this second story, more truly a puzzle, could be
of utmost importance to finding out how we, as humans, act under stress, trauma,
and fear... for the Boomerang had all of these!

The puzzle has far more parts than the tale of the Boomerang. It is, indeed, a
part of a continuing story of mankind�s pioneering search for adventure and
meaning, but repeatedly dashed and frustrated by those who cannot look to the
heights of the pioneer: by the "it will never fly" or "it can�t be done"
mentalities. These who always must say that since it can�t be done, there is no
need to even think about it or even talk about it.
Therein lies the spawning ground of indifference, of apathy, and [of]
dereliction of duty. 

All those who didn�t follow through on the Boomerang event were not willfully
derelict: they were merely the thousands of "it will never fly" and "it can�t be
done" and so there is no need to think about it. The corollary is: "Since it
can�t be done, whomever said it had been done, were simply deluded... they must
have been mistaken, and so no need to look into it further." It is the failure
to seek for the light of the tunnel because there couldn�t be a light.

Intellectual adventure is sterile when there is continual inability to seek
answer to challenges, to seek ways out of the tunnel of indifference. In the
story of the Boomerang, the FAA, the media, scientists, politicians, the
military.... all may momentarily touch upon the mystery, but suddenly it
appeared that apathy saps further energy to incentive, and in its stead is a
great desire [for] nothing... it becomes a hotbed of inertia... a great desire
to do nothing, fobbing it all off in the guise of a handy solution, like "planes
in formation."

It is not as from a seeming direct desire to be in duty, but it is more as
though the call for duty has vanished, or as though some bad fairy had
administered a sleeping potion, an apathy draught. How else might one hold that
otherwise responsible law enforcement, FAA, military, the media etc. would
renege on their duties?

There is a more realistic answer than calling upon some bad fairy (though it
would certainly fit the facts) and that is that it all lies in our human
(mental) nature. A psychologist would express it more professionally, but it
simply amounts to the fact that the human mind has definite limits for
acceptance and accountability. In the history of science this syndrome has been
seen many times and in many ages. For instance, how often has it occurred that
totally revolutionary ideas, so novel at first as to be utterly neglected or
discarded... a form of apathy and total indifference.

As a homely analogy, one might say that such a totally novel idea "overheats the
mental human circuits" and the fuse blows (or the circuit-breaker cuts out) as a
protective device for the mind. The time is not yet right for the age and the
new idea might just as well not have been there in the first place.  Mankind was
not yet able to handle it.
Thus when mankind is presented with a totally bizarre, shocking, traumatic event
(the Boomerang?), a mental circuit cuts out.  Instead of a challenge for action,
there is a dead battery. This is, of course, well known in individual cases of
amnesia in, for example, "shell shock": could it be that a collective amnesia or
apathy can come into play? If so, might it be possible that collectively people
can react traumatically, as to the Westchester Boomerang, to a collective
amnesia, whether they are policemen, media people, the FAA etc.?

Whatever be the case, the effect is real. Many instances in history.... and the
Boomerang is its most recent and spectacular example... when the breaking point
of the collective mind occurs, it must openly disregard patent evidence of the
senses: it can no longer encompass them within their normal borders. The
Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler in WW II is another sample: people simply
refused to accept, and were indifferent to the evidence, because their minds
couldn�t bring themselves to accept that such a Holocaust could possibly be,
despite ample evidence. It was also a "mental circuit breaker," a general apathy
and a will to indifference.

The Boomerang and the Holocaust are but striking samples of what happens when
the collective mind willfully disregards evidence, when "it can�t take it." The
entire modern UFO syndrome is another: ARTICLE; here we have utterly ample
evidence of the global nature of the UFO phenomenon. [In] thousands of instances
and over many countries, the evidence for the UFO phenomenon is clear, but those
in position of policy and authority (FAA, educators, scientists etc) are deaf or
purposely obtuse. Apathy goes hand in hand with the ability to accept even the
most inane answers, anything whatever, just to stave off the necessity to think.

So we cannot at the moment expect to do [but] little about the wealth of
material collected on the Westchester Boomerang (or for the much more abundant
wealth of UFO material). 

The circuits are closed; apathy holds sway. But history has shown that in time
the information and questions dam breaks, sometimes cataclysmically, and later,
why, lo and behold, the pundits by a complete irrational turn of fact, will say,
"Oh, we knew this all the time!"

The Author
Leslie Kean is an investigative journalist whose feature stories, news analysis
and opinion pieces have appeared in the Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun,
Philadelphia Inquirer, International Herald Tribune, Globe and Mail (Canada),
Sydney Morning Herald, Kyoto Journal, The Journal of Scientific Exploration,
Burma Debate, The Nation, Providence Journal, Sacramento Bee, Minneapolis Star
Tribune, Vancouver Sun, the Nation (Thailand), Internazionale (Italy), VSD
(France), Irish Independent, Bangkok Post, Gazette (Montreal), The Commercial
Appeal, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Journal of Commerce, St. Louis Post Dispatch,
San Francisco Examiner, Cincinnati Enquirer, Duluth News Tribune, Las Vegas
Review Journal, San Francisco Bay Guardian, The Progressive, IF Magazine. Her
stories have been syndicated through Knight-Ridder, Scripps-Howard, New York
Times Wire Service, Pacific News Service and the National Publishers
Association. Since 1998, Kean has been an associate producer and co-host for an
investigative news program on KPFA Radio, a Pacifica station broadcast from the
San Francisco Bay Area.

Her books and publications include Perspectives: Drugs and Society (Coursewise
Publishing, Inc. 2000), Stone Soup for the World (Conari Press, 1998), Drugs,
Society and Behavior 98/99 (Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 1998), and Burma�s Revolution
of the Spirit: The Struggle for Democratic Freedom and Dignity co-authored with
Alan Clements (Aperture, 1994; White Orchid Press, 1995, Thai and Burmese
Editions).
Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Ed Rothschild of PodestaMattoon for his invaluable
assistance with this report and Larry Landsman of the SCI FI Channel for the
invitation to write it. Most importantly, gratitude is extended to the many
diligent researchers and courageous scientists who won�t stop asking the right
questions.


October 22, 2002

Copyright Leslie Kean, 2002.
Executive Summary