◆ SpookStack

proved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 Problems of Re lentific Investigation The atmosphere of ridicule surrounding the subject of UFOs, largely due to the activities of the cultists, has prevented many of the best qualified analysts from lending their talents to a meaning- ful scientific investigation. Also, a myth has developed in some scientific quarters that there is nothing in UFO evidence that scientists can come to grips with; no quantitative data or concrete evidence. This position is based on quicksand, since no real scientific effort has been made to acquire such data. It is, in fact, not a reasoned position at all, but a presumption. How can these skeptics be so sure until someone tries to obtain better data with instruments? The evidence presented in this report strongly suggests that an organized and instrumented study of UFOs would be very fruitful. If not, then these skeptics would have a solid basis for their currently illogical position. Some skeptics base their position on the alleged fact that modern tracking instruments have not detected UFOs. On the contrary, UFOs have been tracked with theodolites and filmed at White Sands, N.M. [Section VIII; Photographs], tracked on radar at Cape Kennedy, and by Air Force and civilian radar all over the world. [Section VII; Radar]. There has been a tendency to ra- tionalize, or suppress, any puzzling data. Interpretation of un- explained objects detected by instruments has been left to guess- work. In the summer of 1963, Richard Hall (NICAP Assistant Director) and Walter N. Webb (NICAP astronomy Adviser) visited a mutual friend in Columbus, Ohio. A. B. Ledwith, engineer and former member of the Smithsonian Institution satellite tracking program, provided some information which illustrates one of the problems of UFO investigation. While on the satellite project, Ledwith had made a particular point of studying reports of unidentified flying objects which came from the Nunn-Baker camera sites around the world. In particular, he carefully checked each photograph showing an unidentified light source to see if the ‘‘UFOs’’ could be explained in conventional terms. Many, he found, could not. Several of. the photographs showing unexplained objects tracked by the Smith- sonian cameras were turned over to NICAP., Ledwith emphasized that the photographs didnot prove anything; often it was impossible to completely rule out a stray aircraft, which conceivably could have been captured on film. But the images, nevertheless, were unexplained and no one had reported aircraft in the area. Ledwith also ran into the common skeptical tendency to assume the images must be aircraft, or something conventional, The Smithsonian teams were tracking satellites. If something else which did not fit the satellite track showed up on the film, it was ordinarily assumed to be a film defect, a meteor, or air- craft. Very little careful checking was done to determine the likelihood of these explanations. Japanese Site Photograp On April 14, 1959, the Nunn-Baker camera site at Tokyo Mitaka, Japan, was attempting to track Vanguard 2 (launched February 17, 1959). The developed film showed a bright un- explained object, in the wrong position for the satellite. This was Smithsonian observation number SC5-498 (data on file at NICAP), Photograph reproduced here shows prominent trail left by object. Landings and Near-Landings The most controversial aspect of the UFO subject is the ques- tion of the validity of claims that UFOs have actually landed, in some instances, and that occupants have been seen, On one extreme are fantastic science-fiction sounding claims of sojourns through space with noble beings who have come to aid earthmen through fearsome times. (Such claimants have been labelled “contactees.’’) Dr..Carl Jung [3] and other psychologists have pointed out the cultist aspect of these claims, the apparent wish- ful thinking, and formation of a neo-religion which espouses the “New Age’’ philosophy. On the other extreme are reports from seemingly reliable people, with no obvious axe togrind, who claim to have witnessed the landing or near-landing of strange craft (usually of general elliptical or circular shape). Although there is a vast difference between the types of people who have made the claims on either extreme, and in the types of experience they depict, the confusion around the UFO subject in general makes it nearly impossible to distinguish between the types. If you seem to treat seriously any of these cases, you seem to be accepting all of them. The most ardent believers and the most severe skeptics both tend to assume that either all such stories are true, or all who claim they are true are crack- pots. Unfortunately, life is not that simple and it is not possible at this stage of investigation to make any sweeping judgments. As long as UFO reports are not investigated scientifically, not quickly and thoroughly checked out, doubt will remain. The confusion also leaves an open field for opportunists and char- latans who, it should be noted, are very active in ‘‘contactee’’ circles. Since NICAP has concentrated on investigating factual reports of straightforward UFO observations by reputable people, our investigation of landing, near-landing, and ‘‘contactee’’ reports has not been exhaustive. However, it has been more extensive than many people realize, Our policy has been to quietly investi- gate the controversial cases to the best of our ability without engaging in polemics about them. When facts about these cases have, in our estimation, been fairly conclusively established, we have reported them. In so doing, we have not passed judgment on the whole spectrum of landing claims. Some cases have proved to be fairly obvious hoaxes, others have involvedkey ‘‘witnesses’’ of dubious background and engaged in dubious activities. One of the most famous ‘‘contactees’’ made a claim in 1958 which NICAP thoroughly investigated, and disproved. One of this person’s alleged ‘‘witnesses’’ masquerades as a Ph.D. and a knowledgeable anthropologist. He is neither. One self-styled evangelist ‘‘contactee’’ engaged in blatant misrepresentation of himself while relating a wild tale of contact with spacemen. Later he was convicted in Los Angeles of selling Doctor of Divinity degrees, mainly to other ‘‘contactees.’’ Another was convicted in California of stock fraud. All four, perhaps significantly, claimed meetings with the idealized human-type ‘‘spacemen.”’ Some landings and near-landing cases are more plausible than others. Some may eventually prove tobe honest mistakes of some kind. But as long as it is considered a reasonable hypothesis that some UFOs are space ships, it is logical to suppose that some form of contact with extraterrestrial beings is possible. For the moment, we are ignoring other problems which might prevent or delay contact, such as total dissimilarity between us and extraterrestrials, different psychological make-up, etc. If our hypothesis to explain UFOs is correct, then landing and near-landing reports from seemingly reputable people become the most important cases of all; and this extraterrestrial hypo- thesis is based ona considerable accumulation of solid evidence presented in this report. But lack of recognition even to solidly established, straightforward UFO sighting reports of a less sen- sational nature makes objective investigation of these potentially sensational ones nearly impossible. Approved For Release 2001/04/02 CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0