◆ SpookStack

an sy Bootbigros Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010008- argument and UFO reports is the fact ’ AS ’ 7, UFO Consensus I agree with Markowitz (“The phys- ics and metaphysics of unidentified fly- ing objects,” 15 Sept., p. 1274) that ex- traterrestrial control of UFO’s is unlike- ly. Nevertheless I find his arguments unconvincing. First, imply that Hynek is inconsistent when he states tha: UFO’s have been’: seen hy “scientifically trained people” but have nof been scen by “trained ob- seivers.” 2 thins the distinction here is ‘eusonably char. In this apc of lasers, superpower microwaves, and superconducting mag- nets, his appeal to the law of Stefan- Boltzmann seems curiously unimagina- live, as does his dependence upon solid surfaces to deflect high-energy particles. He arrives at a power required for interstellar flight of 3 * 10™ watts, noting that tu is 30 times the world’s electric gencrating capacity. An equally pertinent comparison would be to note ‘that it is only 300 times the power of a single Saturn V, and that on/y a single decade of development effort separates that vehicle from its 300 times smaller predecessor! In any case. why does an interstellar vchicle need an acceleration of lg? On the other hand, a ship for such a voyage would probably weigh much more than 5000 kilograms. So in the end, one must agree that a satisfactory interstellur propulsion system is quite beyond the capability of our present technology. But his arguments in no wiy prove ©: ianly that it is beyond someone els xy even beyond what we will have CO years from now. As fur as proving that iniersteliar flight violates the laws of physics. his argu-’ rents arc simply irrelevant. His argu: ont that ihe ground should ... radioactive where a UFO has touc’.. down also seems irrele- vant. Isis probable that such voy- avers Wou.. 6 “excursion modules” just as we -.opose to do? And why be searec 8 DECEMBE!. -67 a minor point—he seems to. Letters use a specific impulse of 3 X 107 sec- onds to lift off the earth when 1000 seconds or less would do? In short, the use of an interstellar space ship to ex~- plore within our atmosphere seems about as likely as the use of airliners ‘to explore the bottom of the sea. Why suggest that a 1000-year trip duration should make the voyagers anx- ious to meet us formally? An alterna- tive deduction would be that another hundred years, more or less, is of little consequence to them. The fact that Columbus did noi hesitate to talk to the Indians was not without conse- quences that were unfortunate for Eur- ope and tragic for the Indians. Per- haps our interstellar visitors have learned to be more cauiious—and con- siderate. Finally, the suggestion that “hard- data” cases should be published for all of ‘the technical community to peruse, just like observations of any other in- teresting phenomena, seems construc- tive. But why insist, on the other hand, that the Air Force should completely drop the matter? The only valid argu- ment against extraterrestrial visitors is, I believe, a statistical one. The proba- bility of there being a civilization ad- vanced enough, near enough, and dili- gent enough to find us is simply not very high. RicHARD J. Rosa Avco Everett Research Laboratory, 2385 Revere Beach Parkway, Everett, Massachusetts 02149 I acknowledge Markowitz’ analysis of the UFO problem, and wish him well in the next field to which he lends his attention, since he has apparently finished this onc. He cannot depart quickly enough, however, to escape the objections of those he left standing amid the shambles. His entire argument against the possibility of extraterrestrial ‘control of UFO's resis on theoretical grounds, and bears no relationship to the contents of UFO reports. The one link between Markowitz’ theoretical that objects have been reported to land and take off. Having arbitrarily scttled on a design for a ship employing an- nihilation of matter for power and a horribly inefficient photon drive for thrust, Markowitz proceeds to imagine this starship entering the atmosphere of a planet and landing on its surface, us- ing the full fury of its interstellar drive, a process akin to docking the Forrestal by running it up onto a beach. Since the obvious results of such foolishness have never been observed, Markowitz concludes, “Hence, the published re- ports of landings and lift-offs of UFO's are not reports of spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrial beings, if the laws of physics are valid.” The non sequitur is blatant: Markowitz has proven only that his own design does not explain reports of takeoffs or landings. He has revealed his own haste to arrive at a particular’ conclusion. When Markowitz “assumes for pur- poses of discussion” the existence of technically advanced beings, one might expect that this assumption would play a part in the discussion, but evidently the implications of such an assumption have escaped his notice. A technically advanced: race just a cosmic clock-tick ahead of.us in achievement would not only have inconceivably advanced sci- entific ability, but technological skill be- yond our comprehension. Such beings would effectively command immense wealth; what would seem to us impos- sibly ambitious, ruinously expensive, and even frivolous undertakings would be carried out with a casualness that would shock our poverty-stricken souls. It is no more possible for us to expand our minds enough to encompass what will be the truth in a thousand years than it would have been for Charlemagne to speculate! on the present gross national product of France, without even a word for 10°, The contrast between the no- tion of an advanced civilization’s mode of transport (as one may legitimately attempt to imagine it) and Markowitz’ sketchy design for a starship is ludi- crous. Of course there may not be any ad- vanced civilization, or any starships. Nobody jcan go beyond .premise-bound speculations on those subjects, and even our speculations are denied the use of physical |principles and effects that re- main undiscovered. ~ WILLIAM T. POWERS Dearborn Observatory, | Northwestern University, Evanston, Ulinois 60201 1265 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R000100010008-3