I take your points Bill regarding misinformation and disinformation of UFOs.
What could it be that the governments have been so concerned about? As everyone likes to ask: why the secrecy? Surely, if the US and NATO truly believed what they said for years about UFOs – that they are usually misidentifications of natural phenomena – they would hardly be interested in the problem. But that is not the case. When one studies the available data, these objects have violated restricted air space, and have been seen by thousands of witnesses.
The core of the problem comes down to two possible answers. Both are startling, and both difficult to accept, in their own way. The first possibility is that UFOs are the product of a revolutionary, human, technological breakthrough. This comes round to the programme Stephen referred to on TV on Man Made Flying Saucers. Rumours have existed for a long time, one of which referred to in the programme traces the development to Hitler’s Germany. Without denying the sophistication of the German scientific establishment, such a claim cannot shake the aura of absurdity. The Germans, acknowledged by all to have done the most advanced work during the war in the field of aerodynamics, barely figured out how to reach England with their V-2 rockets. A breakthrough to create flying saucer technology would have involved much more than propulsion technology, materials, and aerodynamics. It would have meant the creation of a viable anti-gravity craft with nearly unlimited maneuverability and speed. There has never been the slightest shred of evidence, either in the realm of fact or common sense, that points to a German flying saucer with those capabilities. Yes, there were flying saucer developments but with technology of the period according to the records.
Could flying saucers have been invented after the war by the Americans, or possibly someone else? This was a distinctive possibility mulled over by various groups in the early years. During a huge wave of UFOs of 1947, several classified documents expressed the belief that the objects were a secret American, or possibly Soviet, technology. Yet the US group assigned to the problem in 1948, Project SIGN, rejected both explanations. If Soviet, why fly these things over the American heartland? If American, why fly them over cities, where everyone could see them, or over sensitive installations, where they were harassed by US aircraft? Add on top of this the amazing production levels that would be necessary to fly so many of these objects, which were seen all over the world. After all, even if one discounts the flying discs of World War Two, that were not only seen in Europe, but in India, Indonesia, New Zealand, Solomon Islands and China. What about the sightings over Scandinavia and the rest of Europe in 1946? Were these the result of revolutionary American or Soviet technology?
Looking back from some distance, we can see that the problems of creating a flying saucer were no easier for the Americans or Soviets than they had been for the Germans. Such a breakthrough, so soon after the war, makes no sense. Moreover, it is supported by no evidence.
It is this very issue that makes a study of the early period of UFOs so important. Few people doubt that 21st Century aviation technology is capable of fantastic feats, many of which could be attributed to “flying saucers.†The point is, was such a technology in existence at the mid-20th century? All indicators point to a definitive NO.
The second possibility, that UFOs are the product of an alien technology. Without devising arguments, one can look at the historical and technological evidence. For decades, every official study of UFOs followed the same pattern: extended analysis of the data persuaded researchers that aliens were the most likely explanation, a conclusion that was inimical to those in charge of the study. As early as 1948, Project SIGN concluded that flying saucers were probably extraterrestrial. After the UFO project at Wright-Patterson AFB in the USA was revitalized in 1952, matters again
reached the critical point, and most project members favoured an extraterrestrial solution. This, too, ended in failure and dispersion. After 1966, when the US Air Force carefully selected a university to solve the problem once and for all, a near mass resignation ensued, and UFO believers were fired midway through the project.
There is no lack of important persons who attested to the reality of the UFO phenomenon, nor of the belief that aliens were behind it. But what else is there? Unfortunately, there is no authorised piece of a UFO craft to analyse, although several ought to exist.
What remains is photographic evidence, radar/visual evidence, and an enormous mass of witness testimony.
This comes back to the weakness of the documentary on man made flying saucers. It appears that the producers created a problem of selectivity, not thorough investigative journalism of the wider picture of Ufology, but selectivity to project the idea to the uninitiated audience that it was all a hoax.
I agree Bill with your points re. disinformation.
Journalists who think they’re too intelligent to be fooled are, in fact, those most susceptible to being fooled.
The history of counter-intelligence provides many examples of extremely astute military leaders who were hoodwinked by a carefully constructed deception campaign. The point is that, given enough coordinated effort, anyone can be fooled. Propaganda works by subtly reinforcing existing beliefs. It is not surprising , then, that the intelligence community regularly provides those who believe UFOs are nonsense with additional reasons to continue thinking that way.
Common sense is not enough to understand UFOs (or any other scientific anomaly). Those who argue that UFOs are obvious nonsense and should be dismissed, based purely on common sense, either do not understand the purpose of science or are being duplicitous. In order to make progress, science must examine scientific anomalies because they provide essential clues to the inadequacies of existing theories.
Beware of the false dichotomy between natural and supernatural. As Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “Any sufficient advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.†Or, to put it another way, what seems like magic today may become tomorrow’s high technology.
Eamonn A
