If you asked an established and respected astronomer if there are "such things" as UFOs, he or she would probably say something like, "There is not one shred of undisputed evidence that proves UFOs are alien ships". I cannot argue with this statement, there is no unshakeable proof of visiting pilots from other planets. however, the issue at hand is not what there is proof of, but of what investigations and research is warranted to find out what UFOs actually are. Christopher Columbus had no perfect proof of what was on the other side of the ocean, BUT THIS DID NOT STOP HIM FROM FINDING OUT!

There are a sufficient number of events where at least a dozen independent witnesses clearly saw something very strange in the sky that did not appear to be natural. Although this proves nothing, many people believe it leaves open a mysterious gap in our knowledge that deserves as much scientific attention as many other mysteries under active investigation. Until orthodox science makes a reasonable attempt to fill this gap, the "silly pseudo-science of UFOs" will never go away.

I have concluded that the UFO issue is too complex, polarised, politicised, and multidisciplinary to take any one case or point of view and draw sound conclusions. Too many skilled scientists take one of two ill-conceived approaches: They either say something like the opening sentence and go on their merry way, or they explore the subject with an impatient thirst for "instant factual gratification." When the instant factual gratification does not come within a few weeks, they bail out saying that the field is populated with too many UFO zealots who don't use the discipline of science properly (if at all). Good, raw facts are often hidden in hype and wild speculation, but they ARE there.

Agreeing for the moment that good scientific work on UFOs (whatever they are) is lacking, the key issue is: IS EXPLORING THEM WORTH THE EFFORT? In 1969 a government research project answered this question with "No." The government then closed its UFO exploration shop and left further investigation up to private and non-profit groups.

What was left out of the conclusion was that many members of the investigation team felt that the government research program was poorly run, understaffed, and politicised. One leaked memo strongly hinted that the project was staffed with people who had pre-known biases (equivalent to a rigged jury). The official conclusion was NOT A CONSENSUS of the participants. This project was known as the Condon Committee Report (which shared resources with project Bluebook). It was a perfect lesson on how NOT to organise an objective and productive research project. The military command and control structure used for the project was not built for the democracy of ideas that good science requires.

Many experts who worked with the project went on to become public proponents of further exploration. Keep in mind that being a proponent of further exploration does not necessarily make one a proponent of the idea that UFOs are vehicles from non-human civilisations. Quickly lumping people into "believers" and "non-believers" has ruined good research. WHAT IS NEEDED IS BELIEVERS IN RESEARCH; experts who thirst to know, regardless of what is found or how it will make them look.

Before I meander too far into details, here are my reasons why I think the UFO phenomenon deserves respected research attention:

Here are the more commonly proposed categories listed in approximate order of "normalness":

On June 30, 1954, captain James Howard and approximately 15 other people aboard a routine flight claimed that they clearly saw a swift, large, dark pear-shaped object with six smaller objects circling around it, similar to a beehive. It appeared to change shape at times, although some witnesses suspected this was due to orientation changes. It was observed for over TEN MINUTES as the crew tossed around guesses about what is was. The captain stated that the object appeared very "solid" (clearly defined edges). The object first appeared around about 9:10pm, so the summer sky was still light. Notified ground controllers said they had no other scheduled flight in the area and requested that the military scramble a fighter to check on it, but the fighter came too late. (Some accounts report radar confirmation and government seizure of flight records.) Although this is one of the better documented multiple independent witness cases, there are plenty others like it, and more that are ignored or poorly documented because of lack of investigative resources or fear of ridicule.

Let's apply the previously defined categories to this case:

Mistaken identity? Possibly a balloon, but balloons cannot move fast and do not have "satellites", unless it was a military experiment (see below).

Hallucination or illusion? There were too many witnesses and it was observed for too long. Sometimes the atmosphere can act like a lens or mirror and reflect or distort an image of the ground, moon, plane or other objects. Such distortion is a possible explanation, but distortions are usually fleeting and would probably be more nebulous than the reported object. A distortion would also not likely have "satellite" distortions. It's movement was too diverse to be a shadow or reflection of the plane. Plane shadows are usually blurry and are very familiar to pilots.

Did the 15 or so witness lie? Unless the captain packed the plane with his friends without being discovered, it is very unlikely the witnesses are lying. Since many witness were crew members, manipulation of the crew roster would probably also be needed. (I am assuming captains did not pick their own crew in those days, but I have not verified this fact.)

Although size is hard to judge at distances without context, an object must be at least about 600 feet away to be near the eye's "infinity focus". A hoax object would have to be at least about 4 feet across to pull such an illusion of size. It would have to also be at the altitude of a commercial plane and capable of movement of itself and tethered sub-objects. Such a hoax object could probably be built with a year's salary, but would put the builder at great legal risk, and be difficult to get sufficiently high without being detected by radar and observers at the time of a summer sunset. It would also be very difficult to replicate the manoeuvrability described by the crew. In addition, tethered sub-objects would probably become tangled after moving around for a minute or so.

Is this story just bad reporting? I have read it from four separate sources, although it was presented in summary format with partial witness interview transcripts. I hope the information age will eventually make it easier to research and verify such cases.

It is quite possible this object was a secret military experiment. If this proved to be the case it would be an important discovery of a military scandal because such experiments are not supposed to take place over civilian land. Notice should also have been given to commercial traffic planners to prevent collisions. Even though the object appeared to have great manoeuvrability, it tended to stay relatively near the plane; a secret military vehicle would more likely try to avoid observation.

This object does not fit the description of any known natural atmospheric phenomena.

Categories H through J have obvious scientific benefits if true.

Some experts will point out that there have been documented cases where pilots and train conductors mistook a fogged-out or atmospherically distorted Venus (evening star) as another vehicle. Their implication is that human error does happen and that such embarrassing cases can be extrapolated to most or all UFO sightings by pilots and others. Before accepting such an extrapolation, consider that the Venus chasers' descriptions of their "UFO" were generally accurate; it was only their interpretation that was wrong. Also note that the object in the above case was described as dark, making it unlikely to be a distorted light source.

With this many witnesses viewing a strange object for this amount to time, it is no wonder the public is curious about UFOs.

Are crime witnesses comparable to UFO witnesses? Lets take a look at the worth of witness testimony. The OJ Simpson trial shows that witness testimony is sometimes more important than physical evidence in the minds of jurors. One of the ex-jurors even said that direct witnesses was the key element lacking.

I will now take the (alleged) OJ murders and assign "levels" of crime investigation.

Now lets look at a similar ranking of the UFO mystery:

If three independent witnesses said that they saw the accused commit a murder, this is usually enough to convict the accused. This would be a "1" on the crime list above. It would rarely be below 3 except under extreme circumstances.

On the other hand if the SAME three witnesses said that they saw a very strange craft-like object, the scientific establishment would assign a level of 4 or 5 (judging by past behaviour).

Why the apparent double standard? A hard-core sceptic (level 5) would probably say, "Well, everyone would agree that murders do happen, but flying saucer claims require a higher level of proof because not even one occurrence has been solidly proven."

My response is that an investigation is being requested, NOT A CONCLUSION. The two often get incorrectly mixed up. By focusing on the extreme (saucers), the level 5 critic builds up a "straw man" to knock down. A common tactic. I think a level of "3" is justified, otherwise we better consider letting hundreds of thousands of prisoners out of jail. (Note that I am generously knocking 2 points off the UFO witness testimonies in relation to the crime testimonies to satisfy critics.)

Another possible rebuttal is that jurors are usually instructed to judge a case on its own merits, not on similarities to other cases.

In 1968 Astronomer Dr. Carl Sagan was asked by a congressman whether or not he felt it was worth while to commit more taxpayer funds to the study of UFOs. He replied that there were far "better" scientific projects to spend resources on. These projects included looking for life (microbes) on Mars and exploring the planets via space probes. Since that time approximately 3 BILLION DOLLARS have been spent exploring Mars alone. Although interesting facts about Mars and the solar system were obtained, there appears to be no life on Mars.

I find it strange that billions were spent to see if there were microscopic critters on Mars, yet only about 10 million (rough estimate) to find out what those strange vehicle-like objects are in Earth's own sky. The difference is a factor over 100! Some would argue that it is difficult to justify spending research money on something that could be any of eleven very different things (categories previously listed). Yes, it is a high risk topic, but high risks often bring high rewards.

Christopher Columbus had no proof he could reach India by ship. Many people he approached bet against the idea because it seemed too risky and the rewards were unknown. It is interesting to note that when Chris did not return with gobs of gold and familiar spices, funding was almost cancelled. Despite little gold, Spain became a very wealthy and influential country for centuries because of general trade with the "new world". Even when one does not find what they expect (India in this case), what is found may be just as rewarding.

Carl Sagan has gone around announcing the fact that a sizeable portion of the population believes in the ET hypothesis proves that the public is not being educated properly. It is the research institutions that have flunked, not the public. The government, especially the military, has been inconsistent and uncooperative in releasing its UFO sighting and related radar information. These institutions seem to be competing with flying saucers for low credibility ratings.

Although some claim a conspiracy is at hand, a more likely explanation is bureaucratic bumbling and institutional risk aversion. UFO's are simply a public relations headache for them. Many institutions do not have the internal culture needed to deal with the subject properly. UFO's are not something a career bureaucratic wants on his/her resume. Educational and government-dependent research institutes avoid the topic like the plague because they fear that being associated with "flying saucers" damages their credibility and respectability. In other words, stodgy gutless wimps.

Another common fallacy is what I call the "nutball extrapolation principle." Under this contention if one UFO witness turns out to be a proven nutball (unreliable), then all UFO witnesses should be considered unreliable.

For example, a group of weather balloons once drifted over a residential area. Allegedly, some witnesses called various government agencies saying that they saw 'fast-moving saucers' doing fantastic manoeuvres.

I writer who appears to be a level "5" sceptic uses such events as proof that ANY reports of UFO are not reliable. The problem with this logic relates to the statistical concept of sample size. If a large population sees something, a small percentage (roughly 1%) will almost always give extreme, wacky answers. What the writer should report is the total number of witnesses, the total number of calls, and the percent of those calls that were extreme. The writer isolated only the extreme portion that reaffirmed his outlook. (Note how the theme of "extremness" keeps popping up.)

In the late 1940's many southwesterners began reporting strange green fireballs in the sky. Although reports were numerous, they were ignored until a military pilot took evasive manoeuvres to reduce the risk of a collision with one. Astronomers and atmospheric experts were then called in to study the phenomenon. Most experts agreed that these fireballs were more erratic and more green than normal meteors. The volume and calibre of the witnesses was that no one seriously doubted the odd nature of these fireballs. While the debate over what they actually were continued, Project Twinkle was being organised to investigate. Special cameras were to be built that could document and triangulate their paths.

Unfortunately the project was cut to a bare minimum and soon after, the Korean War effort changed the military's priorities. This fantastic mystery was never solved. Unlike saucer type sightings, strange meteors had less of an ET stigma associated with them, thus the military could do such a study with less worry about PR and embarrassment. But, they still fouled up this one.

In the Nov. 13, 1993 issue of Science News, page 319, a psychological study of "close encounter" witnesses by Dr. Spanos concludes that although the subjects were no more fantasy-prone than the average person (defined by standardised tests), they were more likely to believe in various supernatural and paranormal subjects. The conclusion was that the subjects' belief in the paranormal probably somehow triggered or contributed to UFO hallucinations or false memories, since the "reality of UFOs has no scientific basis." (some paraphrasing)

I detect sloppy or biased science here. This is a classic chicken-or-egg problem: Did the beliefs cause sightings, or did sightings cause beliefs? The study (and article) should have examined both positions. After all, if I had a close encounter with the Easter Bunny, I would certainly be more open to the idea of the Tooth Fairy. (I might also re-evaluate my beverage preferences).

It is not Dr. Spanos field of expertise to evaluate the reality of UFOs and use this evaluation for his psychological conclusions. (In fairness, I have not seen the full text of the study and am basing Dr. Spanos' conclusions on the Science News text, which may be the "perpetrator" instead.)

More such studies are needed, but I hope the researchers learn from this mistake, stick to the topic at hand, and be more aware of such personal biases or premature speculation.

Besides psychological studies, here are some approaches to investigating the UFO mystery if more resources were devoted to the subject:

• Have a national hot-line and address to collect sighting information. Allow witnesses to leave anonymous reports if they desire. The information should be made public (minus addresses and phone), perhaps with a waiting period to avoid media influence. The government should subcontract the data collection rather than be directly involved since they have bungled past UFO projects. Educational institutions and private parties could then use the sighting data for statistical analysis. Some preliminary studies suggest that UFOs are spotted mostly away from population centres and often near power lines. If true, this pattern may reveal something about the nature of UFOs (or the witnesses). There are many other such speculative patterns to investigate.
• Allow unfiltered radar returns to be analysed by experts or by automated custom detectors. As it stands now, radar data is highly filtered to follow the patterns and speeds of only "normal" sky objects. Note that this is not proposing building new radar installations, but rather tapping into and providing alternative processing to existing incoming signals.
• Make it a federal crime to hide information that may help solve the mystery. There is some evidence that potential UFO data has been classified, hidden, or destroyed simply because those involved did not want to deal with controversy.
• Set up arrays of detectors and cameras at known UFO "hot-spots".
• Perform thorough analyses on "landing site" soil and other alleged UFO artefacts. In past cases there was often insufficient follow-up. For example, one soil sample would not grow any plants. A chemical analysis revealed nothing unusual, however, the reason for lack of plant growth was never followed up on. The soil could have been separated via centrifuge to see which component denied growth, for example. Seeds could also have been exposed and then replanted to see if the denier substance stayed. These are just some possible further tests. There are often plenty of leads and open questions to be pursued in the UFO business if one has the time and money.
• Discourage ridicule and encourage open discussion. When Dr. Hynek was an acting consultant for project Bluebook, he stated that the only way he could get access to the "best data" was too hide his natural scientific curiosity, resist stating criticism, and say what the organisation wanted to hear. He learned this by watching what happened to others who violated the rules of the game.
• Cooperate with foreign organisations and governments.
• Have more expert analysis of photographs and video tapes.
• Try to focus on cases with high credibility instead of cases that make great headlines. The Travis Walton case in Arizona is a good example: it made national headlines, but lacked proof and independent witnesses. Unfortunately, reporting headline-oriented stories are often the only way to fund other research. Perhaps if people recognise this "necessary evil", they won't be disillusioned as easily.

As a reminder, keep speculation separate from facts. Speculation is human nature and may promote enthusiasm for research, but it can also create a demeanour of pseudo-science and damage the investigator's credibility. UFO science dearly needs external credibility.

Alien abductions and odd cattle mutilations are often associated with UFO's. Alleged Alien abductions are usually discovered under regression hypnosis. Because regression hypnosis is not always accurate and hypnosis itself is not well understood, such cases and claims should be viewed with a degree of caution and scepticism. However, by all means this phenomena should carefully and thoroughly be studied. Not to prove a point, but to LEARN! Even if these abductions turn out to be purely psychological in nature, we will have learned a lot more about human psychology and hypnosis. A similar approach applies to cattle mutilation studies.

One common mistake made by some researchers is disallowing an entire subject by "second guessing" the behaviour or motivations of alleged participants. For example, some say that the reported "alien" studies of human biology and psychology should have been completed by now and that the aliens would have gone "home" along time ago. (The UFO phenomenon has been going on since at least as far back as 1947, with a possible wave in the 1890's).

This is another example of speculating beyond available facts. No one (human) knows for sure what the "medical" procedures actually are (if real). Also, it may be that the UFOnauts do not share information with one another for various political or cultural reasons. After all, millions of people still take their own picture of the Lincoln Monument even though plenty of existing postcards and photos are already available. Don't let premature second guessing spoil the search and collection of information.

What does one find in the UFO literature? I found a highly polemic crowd. The subject produces responses similar to the topics of abortion and evolution-topics where background and perceptions of the world often play a bigger part than facts.

Level 5 sceptics like Phil Klass, Carl Sagan, and the PBS Nova/BBC series, seem to take a similar approach: Find cases where people made embarrassing misinterpretations, where Ufologists do sloppy work, where witnesses make apparently contradictory statements, and focus on these in order to make them seem representatives of ALL cases.

Although this provides some useful information, these groups are looking for and providing only information which re-enforces their pre-existing views. Of course the "true believers" on the other side of the spectrum do exactly the same thing. The topic is complex enough that there are plenty of facts to support just about any point of view.

What these groups usually fail to do is include rebuttals provided by their opposite-believing peers. All of these authors launch plenty of hefty attacks on sources, testimonies, and interpretations. As I read these attacks I always catch myself thinking, "I wonder what the rebuttal of the attacked person or position would be." In all, I put these books down with the feeling of not being satisfied. There is a dire need for balanced reporting.

I always wondered what IF UFOs really were piloted by non-human intelligence's. What would be sufficient proof to convince orthodox science? Photographs? No, these are too easy to fake. Burnt soil samples? If a new element was found in samples they certainly would raise curiosity. But who said flying saucers are necessary made out of new elements. Even if metal fragments were found with some new substance, it could be claimed that some clever human joker in good lab made it. Even if a squadron of pilots saw a flying saucer close up and took clear photos, there would still be the question that it was a publicity stunt by the Airforce to obtain funding. After all, we KNOW that the Airforce lies on occasion.

Short of a Whitehouse landing, the level of proof required before an established acceptance does appear to be rather high. I am not stating whether this high hurdle is good or bad, but am pointing out that it is there.

In the late eighteenth century, ordinary people swore that they found rocks that fell from the sky. The scientific establishment considered this idea to be nothing but silly superstition and ignored it. It took a giant meteor shower to change the established opinion. Scientists now call these rocks "meteorites." Don't let scientists make a similar mistake today with UFOs!

Although this analogy points out the stubbornness of orthodox science, the problem with it is that BOTH sides are possibly wrong with regard to UFO's. Let's get enough facts before we start picking sides. Ridicule is not science, but exploration is.