The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem
By Joseph Allen Hynek
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois
Presented at the AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting Pasadena, Calif., January 20-22, 1975.
Abstract
This paper intends to present the elements of the UFO problem, today.
Truly unidentified reports of events in the air, and close to the ground,
exist, events worldwide in origin and appearing to fit a relatively small
number of patterns. The data, amenable to study of an interdisciplinary
nature, involving a number of scientific disciplines and probably
necessitating new departures in methodology, have been imperfectly
studied in the past and have been virtually ignored by science.
An increasing interest in, and open-mindedness about the UFO phenomenon,
whatever its cause, on the part of established scientists and the educated
public exists, and there has been created a Center for UFO Studies, whose
activities are guided by a scientific board of established scientists in
their respective disciplines. The outstanding objective of the attack on
the UFO problem is the formulation of a hypothesis - or hypotheses - that
encompasses the established parameters of the UFO phenomenon - no matter
how far beyond the boundaries of present day science it may have to be.
The contemporary picture of the UFO phenomenon that has at long last emerged
is that the UFO phenomenon is indeed a legitimate problem for science, though
to which discipline, or disciplines, it rightfully belongs is a problem in itself;
it seems clearly to be an interdisciplinary problem, requiring an interdisciplinary
methodology. The available data are only partly amenable to the strict experimental
procedures of the physical scientists; the data are observational data and not
laboratory and experimental, and hence are more akin to the observational data
of the astronomer than to the experimental results of the physicist. Like the
astronomer who must wait but be ready when an event such as an eclipse or a
fireball occurs, the investigator of the UFO phenomenon cannot order events
but must wait for them, but he knows not where or when. But neither the physicist
nor the astronomer, unlike the biologist and the social scientists, deal with
phenomena that exhibit intelligent behavior; the UFO investigator may be so
confronted. If so, the methodology of the behavioral sciences would thus be applicable;
indeed, of intelligent behavior on the part of the UFO can be definitely established,
elements of game theory may need to be employed. It may involve the concept of "do
they know that we know that they know that we know". In any case, a flexible
methodology for this interdisciplinary problem is called for.
But one element that is common to all scientific endeavor is the problem of
signal-to-noise ration; in the UFO phenomenon this problem is a major one. The
UFO problem is, initially, a signal-to-noise problem. The noise is, and has been,
so great that the existence of a signal has been seriously questioned. Isaac Asimov,
whom no one could accuse of lacking in imagination, writes:
"Eyewitness reports of actual space ships and actual extraterrestrials are,
in themselves, totally unreliable. There have been numerous eyewitness reports
of almost everything that most rational people do not care to accept - of ghosts,
angels, levitation, zombies, werewolves, and so on... The trouble is, that whatever
the UFO phenomenon is, it comes and goes unexpectedly. There is no way of examining
it systematically. It appears suddenly and accidentally, is partially seen,
and then is more or less inaccurately reported. We remain dependent on occasional
anecdotal accounts." (in the December 14, 1974 issue of TV Guide, a media magazine with a very great
circulation and hence powerful in forming public opinion.)
Here we see a very important part of the UFO problem, that of the presentation of
data to men of science, and to men, like Asimov and others who excel in writing about science.
Scientific efforts can be seriously hampered if the popular image of a subject
is grossly misleading. Funds can be curtailed and good men of science who wish
to give time to the subject are apt to face misrepresentation whenever their
work receives any public attention. Ball lightning is just as much an unknown
as the UFO phenomenon, yet scientists can openly discuss these "balls of light"
but are likely to be censured if they talk about similar unidentified lights
which last much longer, are brighter, and move over greater distances,
but are labeled UFOs. Proper presentation of the UFO phenomenon to the media
may not seem an integral part of the UFO problem, per se, but its effects loom large.
The signal-to-noise aspect of the UFO problem is aggravated to a high degree
because the signal is a totally unexpected signal, and represents an entirely
new set of empirical observations which do not fit into any existing framework
in any of the accepted scientific disciplines. One may even contemplate that the
signal itself signals the birth of a new scientific discipline.
I return to the out-of-hand dismissal of the UFO phenomenon by persons like Isaac
Asimov, in part, because of the poor presentation of the data to such persons.
This is an important facet of the UFO problem itself and must be taken into account
if we are to make any progress with the study of the signal. An analogy may be useful here:
In the isolation of radium, Mme. Curie was obliged to work through tons of pitchblende
to obtain a minuscule amount of radium. Yet there was no question of the signal in
the "pitchblende noise". The radioactivity of the pitchblende was unquestioned.
Let us suppose that instead there had been a rumor - an old wife's tale, or an
alchemist's story - that there existed a miraculous unknown element which could
be used in the transmutation of elements, and which had miraculous healing powers
and other exotic properties. Would any scientist, on the basis of such an alchemist's
tale, have done what Mme. Curie did to lift the signal out of the noise of tons of
pitchblende ? Hardly. Mme. Curie _knew_ that there was a signal - it wasn't a rumor.
And although the labor was immense, there was a definite, scientifically accepted
methodology for separating the signal from the noise.
Now, in the UFO problem we did not know at the start that there was a signal -
there were merely tales, unacceptable to scientists as a body. Only those of us,
through a long exposure to the subject, or motivated by a haunting curiosity to
work in the field and to get our hands dirty with the raw data, came to know
there was a signal. We _know_ that we cannot find a trivial solution to the
problem, i.e., a common sense solution that the phenomenon is either entirely
a matter of misidentification, hallucinations, and hoaxes, or a known phenomenon
of nature, e.g., of a meteorological nature. We know that there exists a subset
of UFO reports of high strangeness and high witness credibility for which no one
- and I emphasize - _no one_, has been able to ascribe a viable explanation.
But the Isaac Asimovs and the trained scientists, as well as large segments
of the public, do not know this. And we cannot expect them to know this unless
we present data to them properly, and thus provide motivation to study the subject.
We who have worked in the UFO field are somewhat in the position of Einstein who
wrote to Arnold Sommerfeld in response to Sommerfelds' skepticism of the General
Theory of Relativity:
"You will accept the General Theory of Relativity when you have studied it.
Therefore I will not utter a word in its defense."
Emotional defense of the UFO phenomenon is pointless; the facts, properly presented,
must speak for themselves. With the noise level so high, and with the popular interpretation
of UFOs as visitors from outer space rather than simply what their initials stand for,
Unidentified Flying Objects - an unidentified phenomenon whose origin we do not know
- it is very difficult for one to be motivated to study the subject.
The noise in the UFO problem is two-fold. There is the obvious noise, and also
the more "sophisticated" noise, which might even be part of the signal. The obvious
noise is akin to that well known to any scientist. An astronomer recognizes the noise
of errors of observation, of instrumental errors, or that introduced by atmospheric
distortion, by photon statistics, etc.
In our problem the noise is likewise comprised of errors of observation (though to
a much greater degree), but also to wishful thinking, deliberate substitution of
interpretation of an event for the event itself, as, "I saw a space ship last night"
for "I saw a light in the sky last night", and the totally extraneous noise of the
unbalanced imaginations of the pseudo-religious fanatics who propagate unfounded
stories and who uncritically accept anything and everything that appeals to their
warped imaginations.
Air Force Project Blue Book amply demonstrated the major and obvious noise problem.
Study of some 12,600 cases in Air Force files showed that the great majority of initial
reports - about 80% of them - proved merely to be misidentifications of common objects
or phenomena, other types of mistakes, and a few hoaxes. This finding is fully
substantiated by my own many years of experience in the investigation of UFO
reports, and by the experience of serious investigators in various countries
with whom I have discussed this matter.
The ratio of 4:1 seems to be sort of an invariant; it was present in the early Project
Sign report (1949) and has been so far, present down the years since then. The high noise
is a bete noire for the makers of catalogues of UFO reports; clearly if 80% of the raw
reports represent noise, very little of consequence can be extracted from such extensive
lists unless a mechanism is employed to upgrade the original basic data. Dr. Saunders,
from whom we shall hear later, and who has done extensive work in the production of
the voluminous UFOCAT, is, of course, well aware of the high noise level and has
made provision in his coding system whereby cases having a high degree of probability
of being 'signal', can be extracted from the noise. Less scientifically oriented
investigators or organizations may not be fully aware of the strong dilution factor
the noise level represents.
The obvious noise inputs can be allowed for; it is the data input which may or may not
be noise that remains to vex us. Take, for example, close encounters in which physical
effects and craft occupants, respectively, are reported. Project Blue Book considered
all of these as noise, dismissing the first almost always as a "hoax" and the second
as "psychological".
But were they all hoaxes or the products of unbalanced minds? Today, with a far larger
data base than was available to Blue Book (for not only a great many UFO reports in this
country never made their way to Blue Book, but the flow of foreign reports, gathered by
UFO organizations and investigators in many other countries also largely by-passed Blue
Book), we recognize the self-same patterns occurring today as were reported in the 1950's.
It has become increasingly harder to dismiss these reported patterns. Some of what many
of us regarded originally as noise may even prove to be part of the signal! Take, for
example, the reports from widely scattered regions of the globe, of the seemingly
paranormal aspects of some UFO reports. These "contactee" cases have generally been
regarded even by seasoned UFO investigators as crackpot emanations. Could they,
however, possibly be part of an extremely complex signal that our culture does
not know how to interpret?
All of this, of course, complicates our assessment of the UFO problem. But it does
remain, foremost, a signal-to-noise ratio problem. Let us therefore acknowledge the
noise and its ubiquitous presence, and turn to the main elements of the emerging
picture of the UFO phenomenon.
The aspects of the UFO problem and the scientific objectives relating to them are,
in my opinion, these:
(1) Truly unidentified reports of events in the air or close to or on the ground exist.
To deny this would be tantamount to saying that we, as scientists, understand everything
that happens in the sky, in the air, and on the ground. (We don't understand ball lightning,
for example!) A large percent of these sightings have been popularly termed UFOs, and also
popularly interpreted most frequently as evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Such an interpretation is obviously unwarranted without a detailed study of the content
of reports of unidentified sightings. It is essential to establish with a high degree
of probability, if not with certainty, the characteristics, both specifically and
statistically, of the content of these unidentified sightings, for the contents of
the reported sightings constitute the UFO phenomenon. For, the "U" in UFO simply means
unidentified, and may cover a wide range of unrelated causes.
(2) Those sightings termed UFO sightings represent a phenomenon that is worldwide
and appears to manifest in a relatively small number of patterns of appearance and behavior.
These patterns are being well delineated by UFO investigators and some are the subject
of later papers in this program, and so I will only broadly summarize them, based on my
own work in the subject. The content of the most reliable reports, as judged by the caliber
of the witnesses, describes, on a global basis, apparently physical craft which have the
following properties: they can maneuver with ease in our atmosphere, they appear largely
unaffected by gravity and the inertial properties of matter (as exhibited by the ability
of hovering a few feet above the ground or high in the air with seeming little effort,
and the ability to accelerate, often noiselessly, at incredible rates by ordinary standards).
They appear capable of detection by radar on occasion, as attested by some of the best
accounts which involve radar confirmations of visual sightings, and vice versa. At
night they are primarily visible by self-generated light and only secondarily by
reflection, and virtually all colors of the spectrum are reported, with a change
in color often observed as the UFO accelerates.
The UFOs are capable of physical effects: they are reported to leave "landing marks"
or other physical evidence of their proximity, such as rings or other types of imprints
on the ground, plant life is withered or blighted, they are capable of being recorded
photographically, capable of influencing animals (it has frequently been reported that
attention to the presence of a UFO was first given by animals), and physiological
effects on humans have been frequently reported, e.g., temporary paralysis and
blindness, headaches, nausea, but permanent or fatal damage has been rarely reported.
The question of whether the UFO phenomenon is a manifestation of some type of
intelligence, whether extraterrestrial, "meta-terrestrial", or indeed some aspect
of our own, is a critical one. Certainly, in those close encounter cases in which
creatures or occupants, ostensibly the pilots of the craft, are reported, intelligent
behavior of some sort seems obvious. Even if the occupants are robots, a more distant
intelligence is implied. The almost universally reported response to detection by these
occupants is an important part of the picture; upon detection the creatures are
reported to disappear quickly and take off. Except in certain cases, there appears
to be no desire for any involvement with the human race.
The non-occupant cases, ranging from lights seen at night (whose behavior, general
appearance, and trajectories do not conform to obvious explanation), to the metallic
looking discs frequently reported in the daytime, to the domed, port holed craft
reported mostly at night, all exhibit behavior which can be characterized as
intelligent as contrasted to random-walk behavior.
The very peculiar property of the UFO, and one which has caused many to dismiss
the entire subject, is the extreme localization of the phenomenon in space and
time. "Why didn't more people see what so-and-so reported ?" is frequently asked.
The answer is probably two fold: It has been the experience of most investigators
that close encounter cases manifest preferentially in relatively isolated places,
away from dwellings and installations frequented by humans. This is evident from
a study of specialized catalogs of these events from which as much noise as
possible has been vetted. One might be tempted to say of such cases that a
sort of "avoidance principle" has been followed, but much more study is
needed to firmly establish this point.
Secondly, why UFOs are not seen by large groups of people, or sequentially
by independent groups of people along the trajectory of a UFO, is simply that
vertical rather than horizontal trajectories are greatly favored. Recently,
it was pointed out on a popular TV broadcast that when a particularly bright
meteor occurred it was seen by large groups of people, photographed by many,
and its trajectory accurately traced. Why is this not the case of UFOs? This
was the famous case of a bright daylight fireball that traveled almost
horizontally, miles high, across several states, and crossed areas of high
summer tourist density (camera equipped!). UFOs, however are most frequently
reported as descending at a steep angle, hovering for a few moments, and then
taking off again on a nearly vertical trajectory. Coupled with the appearance
in generally isolated regions this offers a reasonable explanation
of the paucity of witnesses.
The majority of the sightings are at night, and, as Vallee and Poher have shown,
if rectification for mankind's sleeping habits are valid, the majority of events
(but not sightings) occur in the very early hours of the morning.
All in all, the emerging picture of the UFO problem revolves about the equally
emerging picture of the UFO phenomenon as one that represents a set of entirely
new and empirical observations which our present scientific framework is severely
strained to encompass. Instead, the hovering, the rapid accelerations, and the
apparently effortless maneuvers of the UFOs clearly imply a far advanced technology
- if, as UFO investigators tend to agree, the reported events do represent signal and not noise.
(3) The UFO phenomenon has been ignored or very imperfectly studied by the scientific fraternity.
I believe this has largely been due to the poor presentation of the subject matter.
It could hardly be expected that the scientific fraternity could have been self-motivated
to study UFO reports in the face of the extremely high signal-to-noise ratio and the poor
"sponsorship" of the subject. In TV parlance, the program has had a bad sponsor. It was
presented mostly in tabloids, in pulp magazines, and in the sensational press.
(4) _UFO data are amenable to study of an interdisciplinary nature, involving
a number of scientific disciplines and probably necessitating new departures in methodology._
We do not know to whom the UFO problem really belongs - to the physical scientist,
to the sociologist, or to the psychiatrist. We know only that it exists. Radar returns
and other physical effects of the UFO phenomenon including photographs, are
obviously susceptible to laboratory and other physical analysis.
Until spectrograms of nocturnal lights are obtained, and accurate measures
of angular accelerations, trajectories, sounds, and of colors and color changes
become available, less precise methods, akin to those used in the piecing together
of intelligence data, must be employed. Statistical methods, as those already used
by Poher, Saunders, and Vallee, can be powerfully employed.
As long as our primary data are presented in the form of witness accounts, one
has the same problem, for instance, as does the investigator of air crashes when
questioning witnesses, or a detective investigating a suspected case of arson.
It is becoming abundantly clear that in the UFO problem, the methodology must
be adapted to the phenomenon, and not the phenomenon to a particular methodology.
(5) There is an increasing interest in, and an open-minded attitude toward,
the UF0 phenomenon. whatever its cause, on the part of established scientists
and the educated public.
A very interesting aspect of the emerging picture of the UF0 problem is the
increasing willingness of scientists and technical persons to enter into discussion
of the UFO phenomenon, even though conducted on the controversial level.
An increasing number of knowledgeable persons no longer dismiss the subject
as sheer nonsense and as being in the same category as witchcraft, demonology,
werewolves, etc., although one still finds serious books on UFOs shelved in
libraries and bookstores under "Occult", "Mysticism", and "Science Fiction."
(6) There has been created a Center for UFO Studies, a free association of
scientists motivated by their common interest in the UFO problem.
The Center was established to fulfill three main functions. First, to provide
a focal point for the efforts of those scientists who have become intrigued by
and concerned about the UFO problem and wish to contribute their expertise in
their respective disciplines to an attack on the problem; second, to provide a
locus for those who wish to obtain authoritative and reliable information about
the UFO phenomenon, documents, reports, etc., which are not easily available elsewhere;
and thirdly, to provide a place where people who have had a UFO experience can report
it without fear of ridicule and where they can feel that such a report can contribute
to a scientific approach to this problem.
The Center is not open to general membership, for obvious reasons, but does have
the status of a not-for-profit corporation, and as such, can accept contributions
that are tax-deductible. It openly seeks financial support so that it can support
and publish the research of its scientific members, maintain a library, organize
symposia, and act as a "clearing house" for inquiries from other scientific bodies
and from the public.
(7) The outstanding objective in the attack on the UFO problem is the formulation
of an hypothesis, or hypotheses, - no matter how far reaching or how much in apparent
conflict with the present day scientific concepts such hypotheses may have to be -
that will encompass the patterns of UFO behavior that have been established by the
most careful analysis.
Given the elements of the present picture of the UFO phenomenon, it is clear
that any viable hypothesis that meets these picture elements satisfactorily will
be, according to present views, "far out". There have been other times in the history
of science when striking departures from classical concepts were necessary. Since new
hypotheses must in some way use present knowledge as a springboard, it is a sobering
thought to contemplate that the gap between the springboard of the known and a viable
UFO hypothesis might even be so great as to prevent the formulation of an acceptable
hypothesis at present. Thus, for example, only a century ago, an inconsequential
period of time in total history, the best scientific minds could not have
envisioned the nuclear processes which we now feel certain take place in the
deep interiors of stars. The question of energy production on the sun capable
of maintaining the sun's prodigious outflow of energy for hundreds of millions
of years - a time period demanded by the fossil history millions of years - was
simply not answerable by any hypothesis conceivable to the scientists of a century
ago. It is indeed sobering, yet challenging, to consider that the entire UFO
phenomenon may be only the tip of the proverbial iceberg in a signaling an entirely
new domain of the knowledge of nature as yet totally unexplored, an unexplored
and as unimagined as nuclear processes would have been a century ago.
It is necessary to be aware of this possibility but it should not cow us into hopeless
inactivity. There may be viable hypotheses which can be couched in present terms.
The UFO phenomenon exists, and this fact alone should represent a challenge to
science and not a roadblock. We have a responsibility as scientists to support
those who accept this challenge even though we may not ourselves be inclined
to pursue the matter. In any event, ridicule of those who do consider this
subject should not enter, for ridicule is certainly not a part of the scientific method.
It is to support these scientists who have become intrigued by the challenge of
the UFO phenomenon that the Center for UFO Studies has been created, and the
scientific board of the Center welcomes your interest and cooperation.
|
