UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 1

Science And The Failure To Investigate

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:54:26 -0400
Archived: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:54:26 -0400
Subject: Science And The Failure To Investigate




Source: Coalition For Freedom Of Information

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/science_research.pdf


Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
by
Leslie Kean

A Research Report

Commissioned by SCI FI Channel

October 22, 2002

Copyright Leslie Kean, 2002.

i
Executive Summary

The UFO phenomenon is real

Unidentified aerial phenomena, otherwise known as UFOs, are
real, not the stuff of science fiction. Something for which
there is no scientific explanation has been observed in
America's (and the world's) air space for over fifty-five years.
Trained observers -- pilots, air traffic controllers, radar
operators, astronauts, military personnel -- and government
agencies have reported and documented spectacular events
visually, photographically, and on radar. Many accounts are
available in the literature.

 - Despite intense public interest, there has been no
independent, federally financed scientific research conducted on
these phenomena since the flawed and biased 1969 Condon report.

The findings of Dr. J. Allen Hynek

The late J. Allen Hynek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State
University and later chairman of the astronomy department at
Northwestern University, was an official astronomical consultant
to the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book. His classified report
for the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base recommended that the UFO question be
given "the status of a scientific problem," freeing the
scientists from the restraints of secrecy which confuse the
public. "The first effort should be to determine with great
accuracy what the phenomena to be explained really are and to
establish their reality beyond all question," he said.

 - His request for a scientific study was not granted. Instead,
the Air Force, CIA, and later the 1969 University of Colorado
Condon report undermined valid scientific data through secrecy
and deceptive press releases.

The Congressional testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald

On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee
heard the testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist
of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Professor of
Meteorology at the University of Arizona. A respected authority
and leader in the field of atmospheric physics, McDonald had
authored highly technical papers for professional journals. He
spent two years examining formerly classified official file
material and radar tracking data on UFOs; interviewing several
hundred witnesses; and conducting in-depth case investigations,
details of which were provided to the Committee.

McDonald told the Committee that, "no other problem within your
jurisdiction is of comparable scientific and national
importance_the scientific community, not only in this country
but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense
a matter of extraordinary scientific importance."

 - Despite an apparent positive response from some Committee
members, the requests of McDonald and other scientists for
further action by the Congress never materialized.

ii Seeking UN sponsorship

Between 1975 and 1978, Sir Eric M. Gairy, Prime Minister of
Grenada, proposed to the United Nations General Assembly that
the UN establish "an agency or a department of the United
Nations for undertaking, coordinating, and disseminating the
results of research into Unidentified Flying Objects and related
phenomena." Hynek, with his associate Dr. Jacques Vallee and Lt
Col. Larry Coyne, a US Army pilot who almost collided with a UFO
in December, 1978, asked that the United Nations "provide a
clearing house procedure whereby the work already going on
globally can be brought together in a serious, concentrated
approach to this most outstanding challenge to current science."
He pointed out that UFOs had been reported in 133 member states
of the UN and that there existed 1300 cases where "there appears
physical evidence of the immediate presence of the UFO."

 - Like the Congressional hearings of 1968, the proposals got
nowhere at the UN. The research of Dr. Peter Sturrock

In 1997, Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied
physics at Stanford University and emeritus director of
Stanford's Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, organized
and directed a four-day workshop funded by philanthropist
Laurance Rockefeller. The purpose of the conference was to
rigorously review purported physical evidence associated with
UFO reports and to assess whether the further acquisition and
investigation of such evidence is likely to help solve the UFO
problem.

Seven investigators presented cases with photographic evidence;
luminosity estimates; radar evidence; interference with
automobile functioning; interference with aircraft equipment;
apparent gravitational or inertial effects; ground traces;
injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on witnesses; and
analysis of debris.  - A review panel of nine distinguished
scientists from diverse fields recommended continued careful
evaluation of UFO reports stating that, "New data,
scientifically acquired and analyzed" could provide useful
information and "physical scientists would have an opportunity
to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem."

The French government studies the phenomenon The French space
agency known as CNES (Centre National d'=C9tudes Spatiales) has
been the only government agency to conduct a consistent, non-
military investigation into UFO incidents for over twenty years
through its agency called SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des
Ph=E9nom=E8nes de Rentr=E9es Atmosph=E9riques).

In 1999, four-star General Bernard Norlain, former commander of
the French Tactical Air Force, and other retired generals and
admirals from the French Institute of Higher Studies for
National Defense; Jean Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA; Andre
Lebeau, former head of CNES, and a team of scientists and
engineers, released an historic study titled UFOs and Defense:
What Should We Prepare For? The group called themselves the
COMETA, meaning "Committee for In-depth Studies."

iii The French group spent three years examining nearly 500
international aeronautical sightings and radar/ visual cases,
and previously undisclosed pilots' reports. Their three-year
study drew on data from government and military sources around
the world. It concluded that about 5 percent of sightings on
which there is solid documentation seem to be "completely
unknown flying machines with exceptional performances that are
guided by a natural or artificial intelligence."

 - To address the problem, the COMETA urged international action.
It recommended that the European Union undertake diplomatic
action with the United States "exerting useful pressure to
clarify this crucial issue, which must fall within the scope of
political and strategic alliances." The group openly challenged
US denial of the UFO problem.

Britain's former defense chief weighs in

Great Britain's former Chief of the Defense Staff and five-star
Admiral Lord Hill-Norton has taken an outspoken stand in favor
of scientific research. Two years ago, in response to his
government's public dismissal of a multiple-witnessed landing of
a glowing craft that left physical ground traces at Bentwaters
Air Force base in 1980, he said:

 - "This should be the subject of rigorous scientific
investigation and not the subject of rubbishing by tabloid
newspapers."

Aviation safety is a concern

In 2000, Dr. Richard Haines, a retired senior aerospace
scientist from NASA-Ames Research Center and formerly NASA's
Chief of the Space Human Factors Office, authored a report
documenting over 100 cases of pilot encounters with unidentified
aerial phenomena that raise safety concerns, including 56 near
misses. The objects paced the aircraft at relatively near
distances, disabling on board instrumentation and sometimes
caused pilots to make sudden, evasive changes in their flight
paths. Most incidents remain unreported due to the ridicule and
official debunking policy that the pilots face. According to the
report, "Aviation Safety in America - A Previously Neglected
Factor," published by the National Aviation Reporting Center on
Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP) founded by Haines,

 - "Responsible aviation officials should take[these] phenomena
seriously and issue clear procedures for reporting them without
fearing ridicule, reprimand or other career impairment and in a
manner that will support scientific research."

It's time for a scientific study of UFOs

The national security argument is no longer acceptable as a
justification for the U.S. government withholding of decades old
reports of events and physical samples that may have been
recovered. Scientists are the proper authorities to determine
the true nature of the UFO phenomena. They stand ready and
waiting to conduct comprehensive, ongoing studies, if only the
resources are provided. The public appears ready to support the
research with its tax dollars, if only they are given the
opportunity.

 - The policies and attitudes of certain government officials and
agencies must change so that the investigation of unidentified
aerial phenomena can move forward with the rest of contemporary
science.

Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena Overview

"Physicists working in Europe announced yesterday that they had
passed through nature's looking glass. . . opening up the
possibility of experiments in a realm once reserved for science
fiction writers," stated a September New York Times article
about the creation of antimatter.[1]


A scientific probe into unidentified aerial phenomena, also
known as UFOs, could do the same thing. Yet there has been no
independent, federally financed scientific research conducted on
these phenomena since 1969, despite intense public interest. A
September 2002 Roper Poll, prepared for the SCI FI Channel,
showed that 56% of Americans believe that UFOs are something
real and 72% believe that the government is not telling the
public everything it knows about UFO activity.[2]

UFOs are not science fiction. In the 1950's the Air Force
defined them as "any airborne object which by performance,
aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not
conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or
which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object."[3]

There is no implication of origin inherent in the meaning of the
word "UFO." It simply means "unidentified." These objects have
been observed in our air space for over fifty years. Trained
observers - pilots, air traffic controllers, radar operators,
scientists, military personnel -- and government agencies around
the world have reported and documented spectacular events
visually, photographically and on radar.

Accounts of these incidents are widely available in the
literature.[4]

Most of the thousands of UFO reports submitted each year can be
explained. But approximately 5% to 10% represent solid objects
capable of speeds, maneuverability and luminosity far beyond
current known technology.[5]

As far as we know, these are not natural and they are not
manmade. The question is: What are they? Why haven't scientists
been able to study them and provide us with answers? Those
scientists who have examined the evidence agree that for the
benefit of all humanity, our government must disclose
information on the phenomenon to facilitate a full-fledged,
independent scientific investigation spanning many disciplines.

"The phenomena is something real"

In 1947, Lt. General Nathan Twining, Commander of Air Materiel
Command at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, sent a now-famous
secret memo concerning "Flying Discs" to Brig. General George
Schulgen, Chief of the Air Intelligence Requirements Division at
the Pentagon.

"The phenomena is something real and not visionary or
fictitious," he wrote. "The reported operating characteristics
such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in
roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted
or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the
possibility that some of the objects are controlled either
manually, automatically or remotely." Twining described the
objects as metallic or light-reflecting, circular or elliptical
with a flat bottom and domed top, and usually silent.

The AMC Commander stressed the need for "physical evidence in
the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably
prove the existence of these objects."[6]

In order to make a detailed study and investigation, the Air
Force established the top secret Project Sign. It presented an
"Estimate of the Situation" to Chief of Staff General
Vandenberg, concluding that the evidence indicated UFOs were
interplanetary. Vanderberg decided the report lacked proof and
sent it back; it was declassified and burned shortly
thereafter.[7]

=46rom then on, it was clear to Air Force investigators that the
effort must shift to a search for other explanations, such as
Soviet spacecraft or weather balloons. Project Sign was renamed
Project Grudge, which became Project Blue Book in 1951. With no
access to case information classified higher than Secret, the
project was largely a public relations effort attempting to
explain away as many sightings as possible.

Government enlists scientists to undermine science

Documents show that while grappling with the reality of
unexplainable flying objects, some government officials could
not so easily dismiss the possibility of something
interplanetary. In July of 1952, the FBI was briefed through the
office of Major General Samford, Director of Air Intelligence,
that it was "not entirely impossible that the objects sighted
may possibly be ships from another planet such as Mars." Air
Intelligence is "fairly certain" that they are not "ships or
missiles from another nation in this world," the FBI memo
reports.[8]

Another FBI memo stated some months later that, "Some military
officials are seriously considering the possibility of planetary
ships."[9]

The CIA had urgent national security concerns. H. Marshall
Chapman, Assistant Director of Scientific Intelligence, told the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) in 1952 that, "Sightings
of unexplained objects at great altitudes and travelling at high
speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are
of such nature that they are not attributable to natural
phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles."[10]

The agency decided to establish a "national policy" as to "what
should be told the public regarding the phenomenon, in order to
minimize risk of panic," according to government documents. It
would be presented to the National Security Council. Chapman
said the DCI must be "empowered" to initiate the research
necessary "to solve the problem of instant positive
identification of unidentified flying objects."[11]

To do so, the DCI would "enlist the services of selected
scientists to review and appraise the available evidence_"[12]

The office of scientific intelligence began an association with
H. P. Robertson, specialist in physics and weapons systems from
the California Institute of Technology, "toward establishing a
panel of top scientists and engineers" for this purpose.[13]

In January 1953, the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence
convened its advisory panel of "selected scientists" for a
cursory, four-day review of some UFO cases and film footage. The
group fulfilled its mission of establishing the desired national
policy: A covert "educational program of training and debunking"
designed to reduce the number of UFO reports. It suggested using
"mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular
articles" to reduce public interest and gullibility, with the
assistance of psychologists and advertising experts. Civilian
groups studying UFOs should be "watched" due to their influence
on public thinking. The final recommendation was that "the
national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the
Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been
given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately
received."[14]

The pronouncements of the panel forever affected attitudes in
the media toward the subject of UFOs. Ridicule remains the
predominant mainstream media response to the subject, despite
the fact that those dismissing it have not looked at the
evidence and are uninformed. Attitudes of the scientific
community are greatly impacted by media condescension and
censorship of this issue.

J. Allen Hynek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State University
and later chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern
University, was an official technical consultant to Project Blue
Book for two decades. As a skeptic and debunker himself when
beginning his work for the Air Force, Hynek sat in on most of
the Robertson panel meetings. He said later that the panel gave
short thrift to real science. "The implication in the Panel
Report was that UFOs were a nonsense (non-science) matter, to be
debunked at all costs," Hynek wrote in 1977.[15]

After interviewing astronomers on the subject of unidentified
flying objects just prior to the Robertson Panel meeting, Hynek
noted that even discussing the subject led to an "overwhelming
fear of publicity" for these scientists.

In a 1952 classified report for the Air Technical Intelligence
Center (ATIC) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Hynek
recommended that the UFO question be given "the status of a
scientific problem," freeing the scientists from the restraints
of secrecy which confuse the public. "The number of truly
puzzling incidents is now impressive," he reported. "The first
effort should be to determine with great accuracy what the
phenomena to be explained really are and to establish their
reality beyond all question."[16]

His request was not granted. Instead, five months later the
Robertson Panel "made the subject of UFOs scientifically
unrespectable. For nearly 20 years not enough attention was paid
to the subject to acquire the kind of data needed even to decide
the nature of the UFO phenomenon," Hynek said.[17]


Air Force press release misrepresents scientific data

Following the 1952 overflights of unidentified objects in
Washington DC, which were picked up on radar at two Air Force
bases and chased by F-94 jets[18], the Air Force turned to the
Battelle Memorial Institute, a prestigious scientific research
organization. It asked the Institute scientists to address the
following question: Do the objects officially designated as
"unknowns" differ from the "knowns?" If one examines the basic
characteristics of color, speed, shape, light brightness, number
of objects and duration of observation, are the descriptions
similar for both groups? Through a statistical analysis, it
could be determined at what probability the unknowns and knowns
were actually the same. If the characteristics of both groups
are close to the same, one could deduce that the unknowns are
probably misidentifications of ordinary things. If they differ
strongly, then one could argue that UFOs are "real." Performed
under the supervision of ATIC, the findings of this study were
presented in the 1955 Project Blue Book Special Report #14,
classified Secret.[19]

When standardized statistical tests were applied to over 2000
sightings, the probability was less than 1% for each of the five
characteristics (other than brightness) that the unknowns and
knowns were the same. Yet the report's conclusion blatantly
disregarded these definitive results. It stated, "The results of
these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm nor deny
that the unknowns are primarily unidentified knowns, although
they do indicate that relatively few of the unknowns are
astronomical phenomena."

The unknowns were defined in the Battelle report as distinct
from known objects such as balloons, astronomical data,
aircraft, and miscellaneous and psychological manifestations.
They were also defined as clearly distinct from those sightings
with insufficient information. In other words, there was enough
information to determine the unknowns were not anything known.
Yet the summary stated the false contradiction that "all
unidentified aerial objects could have been explained if more
complete observational data had been available."[20]

Another finding of the study was that unknowns constituted 33%
of all sightings from 1947 - 1955 for which the reliability of
the sighting was categorized as "excellent." Yet the press
release never presented this. It only cited the unknowns from
the first four months of 1955, which were a low 3%, as if that
was the relevant determination of the study.

The press release concluded that no evidence for "flying
saucers" was found.[21] This simply was not true. Although the
report contained extensive data and applied sound scientific
techniques, the scientists presented nonsensical conclusions
unrelated to that data. Blue Book Special Report #14 was never
made available to the press or public so they could read it for
themselves. The press summary was conveniently used to further
debunk the issue, in support of the Robertson Panel
recommendations. Battelle even kept its involvement secret from
the press and public. After the report was declassified, Hynek
attempted to retrieve the records and working papers of the
Battelle study, which the study had stated were being preserved
for reference. The Battelle Memorial Institute - "an otherwise
flawless scientific research organization" -- told him they had
been destroyed.[22]


Congress hears from scientists

On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee
was pressured by public reaction to some dramatic UFO sightings
to hold a day-long "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects"
because "the rigid and exacting discipline of science should be
marshaled to explore the nature of phenomena which reliable
citizens continue to report," according to the then Chairman
Representative J. Edward Roush of Indiana."[23]

The testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist of the
Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Professor of Meteorology at
the University of Arizona, was the most extensive. A respected
authority and leader in the field of atmospheric physics,
McDonald had authored highly technical papers for professional
journals. He spent two years examining formerly classified
official file material and radar tracking data on UFOs;
interviewing several hundred witnesses; and conducting in-depth
case investigations, details of which were provided to the
Committee.

McDonald told the Committee that no other problem within their
jurisdiction compared to this one. "The scientific community,
not only in this country but throughout the world, has been
casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary
scientific importance." McDonald indicated that he leaned
towards the extraterrestrial hypothesis as an explanation, due
to "a process of elimination of other alternative hypotheses,
not by arguments based on what I could call 'irrefutable
proof.'"[24]

Dr. James Harder, a University of California professor of civil
engineering, explored possible propulsion systems for
interstellar travel that could be used by those UFOs
demonstrating incredible maneuvers at high speeds without any
noise. "On the basis of the data and ordinary rules of evidence,
as would be applied in civil or criminal courts, the physical
reality of UFOs has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt," he
said. UFOs have demonstrated "scientific secrets we do not know
ourselves."[25]

Dr. Hynek recommended that a Congressional UFO Scientific Board
of Inquiry set up a mechanism for the proper study of UFOs
"using all methods available to modern science" and that
international cooperation be sought through the United
Nations.[26]

Despite an apparent positive response from the Committee
members, the requests of the scientists for further action by
the Congress never materialized.


The Air Force tries closing the book

In 1966, the Air Force commissioned the University of Colorado
to conduct a definitive, impartial study on all the UFO data
accumulated by Project Blue Book. Headed by physicist Dr. Edward
U. Condon, the project was profoundly flawed right from the
start. A memo by project coordinator Robert Low to two
University Deans on August 9, 1966 discussing the pros and cons
of taking on the project was unearthed by two project members
who were fired for making it public.

If the project were to be undertaken, Low laid out the problem:

One has to approach it objectively. That is, one has to admit
the possibility that such things as UFOs exist. It is not
respectable to give serious consideration to such a
possibility_one would have to go so far as to consider the
possibility that saucers, if some of the observations are
verified, behave according to a set of physical laws unknown to
us. The simple act of admitting these possibilities just as
possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would loose more
in prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly
gain by undertaking the investigation.

But Low offered a way out:

Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers
who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result,
could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that
there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I
think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would
appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific
community,6 would present the image of a group of nonbelievers
trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero
expectation of finding a saucer.[27]

Condon had no problem making his negative attitudes towards his
subject matter public. In January 1967, he stated in a lecture
that, "It is my inclination right now to recommend that the
Government get out of this business. My attitude right now is
that there's nothing to it." He added "but I'm not supposed to
reach a conclusion for another year..."[28]

In fact, Condon himself did not participate in the analysis of
the carefully researched case studies that made up the bulk of
the 1000 pages of the Condon Report, "Scientific Study of
Unidentified Flying Objects," released early in 1969. But his
own summary - all that most of the press and public would ever
read - closed the door to any hope of scientific research in the
years to come.

Like the Battelle report, the lengthy body of the study provided
some excellent scientific analysis, verifying the reality of the
UFO phenomena. Investigator William K. Hartman, astronomer from
the University of Arizona, stated in Case 46 (McMinnville, OR)
that, "This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors
investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to
be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying
object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in
diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within the sight of two
witnesses."[29]

Gordon Thayer concluded for one of his cases that, "The
apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a
mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable
explanation of this sighting."[30]

For another case, he wrote, "The preponderance of evidence
indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case."[31]

Regardless, Condon's summary stated that, "Nothing has come from
the study of UFOs in the past twenty years that has added to
scientific knowledge...further extensive study of UFOs probably
cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be
advanced thereby."[32]

And the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed Condon's
recommendation. "A study of UFOs in general is not a promising
way to expand scientific understanding of the phenomena," it
concluded seven weeks later.[33]

Condon added insult to injury by telling The New York Times that
his investigation "was a bunch of damn nonsense," and he was
sorry he "got involved in such foolishness."[34]

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA),
however, came up with a different conclusion. After spending a
year and a half studying the actual text of the Condon report,
an AIAA panel stated that Condon's summary did not reflect the
conclusions contained in the report but instead "it discloses
many of his[Condon's] personal conclusions." The AIAA found no
basis in the report for Condon's determination that further
studies had no scientific value. These scientists said that, "a
phenomena with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about
30%) should arouse sufficient curiosity to continue its
study."[35]

Twenty-nine percent of the cases studied in the Condon report
remain unexplained to this day.[36]


Is UFO technology beyond existing scientific knowledge?

In conjunction with the Condon report, the Secretary of the Air
Force announced the termination of Project Blue Book, thereby
claiming no more official involvement with the investigation of
UFOs. In another slap in the face to science, his press release
declared that no sightings "categorized as 'unidentified'
represented technological developments or principles beyond the
range of present scientific knowledge."[37]

However, the existence of advanced technology by UFOs had been
well established through military and pilot reports of their
behavior, beginning with the Twining memo. At the time, the
public did not have access to the documentation now available,
which proves the Air Force contradiction.

In 1952, Project Magnet, a classified Canadian Government study
on UFO reports by Wilbert B. Smith released by the Canadian
government in the 1970's, stated the following:

It can be deduced that the vehicles have the following
significant characteristics. They are a hundred feet or more in
diameter; they can travel at speeds of several thousand miles
per hour; they can reach altitudes well above those which would
support conventional aircraft or balloons; and ample power and
force seem to be available for all required maneuvers. Taking
these factors into account, it is difficult to reconcile this
performance with the capabilities of our technology, and unless
the technology of some terrestrial nation is much more advanced
than is generally known, we are forced to the conclusion that
the vehicles are probably extra-terrestrial, in spite of our
prejudices to the contrary.

Smith concluded:

Such vehicles of necessity must use a technology considerably in
advance of what we have. It is therefore submitted that the next
step in this investigation should be a substantial effort
towards the acquisition of as much as possible of this
technology, which would no doubt be of great value to us.[38]

In 1960, Iowa Congressman Leonard G. Wolf stated his concern in
the Congressional record that UFOs could cause accidental war if
mistaken for Soviet weapons. Gen. L. M. Chassin, NATO
coordinator of Allied Air Services, warned that a global tragedy
might occur "if we persist in refusing to recognize the
existence of these UFO's." Rep. Wolf stated that all defense
personnel "should be told that the UFOs are real and should be
trained to distinguish them - by their characteristic speeds and
maneuvers - from conventional planes and missiles_the American
people must be convinced, by documented facts, that the UFOs
could not be Soviet machines." Since UFOs could be distinguished
from Soviet and US conventional aircraft and weaponry by the
"documented facts" of their characteristic speeds and maneuvers,
General Chassin was making it clear that the objects were
displaying a technology not yet acquired by any country.[39]

UFO technology was undoubtedly of interest to those scientists
working secretly with government agencies. In 1976, two F-4
Phantom crews of the Imperial Iranian Air Force pursued a
brilliant UFO, which ejected a second object. While speeding
toward the F-4, the smaller object disabled the jets weapons
control system and communications at the instant the pilot
attempted to fire a missile.[40]

UFOs shut down and restarted the Kuwait Oil Company's pumping
equipment in 1978, prompting the Kuwaiti government to send a
committee of "experts" from the Kuwait Institute for Scientific
Research to investigate. According to a US State Department
document, "The KISR Committee rejected the notion that the
'UFOS' were espionage devices but remained equivocal about
whether they were of extraterrestrial origin."[41]

The documentation shows that in the decades following the close
of Blue Book, the Air Force continued its UFO investigations
behind closed doors, due to continuing national security
concerns[42] - despite the fact that the Air Force stated in 1969
that Blue Book was closed because "no UFO reported, investigated
and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of
threat to our national security."[43]

The Air Force claims that this is still the case today, even
though government agencies refuse to comply with Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests on the basis of "national
security." Information that has been obtained under FOIA and
even some official government reports themselves contradict the
government's denial of national security concerns, both before
and after the closure of Blue Book. Recently, military reports
and ongoing government investigations in countries such as
England, France, and Chile also provide contradictory
information.[44]

In 1975, U.S. fighter jets attempted to pursue UFOs as recorded
in North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) logs.[45]

Defense Department reports state that UFOs were pursued by U.S.
Air Force fighter planes after the objects hovered over three
supersensitive nuclear missile launch sites that same year.[46]
Iranian and Peruvian air force planes tried to shoot down
unidentified craft in 1976 and 1980.[47] F-16s from Belgium
armed with missiles pursued a UFO in 1990.[48] Certainly these
incidents were of national security concern in each country over
which they occurred.

The Air Force press release gave a third reason for its
termination of Blue Book: "There has been no evidence indicating
that sightings categorized as `unidentified' are
extraterrestrial vehicles."[49] No alternative explanation for a
very real phenomena was provided to the public. Many qualified
investigators would take issue with the "no evidence"
declaration (as had Air Force and FBI officials), pointing out
that although much more evidence must be acquired, it is proof
that we lack. In any case, scientists are the proper authorities
to make this determination. They must be provided with the
necessary government documents, physical samples and resources
to do so.


Science in default

Less than two weeks after the closure of Project Blue Book, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held
a symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects which had been
planned for over a year. Astronomers, physicists, sociologists,
psychologists, psychiatrists, and The New York Times science
editor presented papers. Again, James McDonald - who had added
another year of intensive study since his presentation before
Congress - was the strongest voice in laying out details of
unexplained cases and advocating for adequate scientific
research.

He pointed out the clear weaknesses of the Condon study. Claims
of scientific competence were "the single most serious obstacle
that the Air Force has put in the way of progress" with "the
regrettable consequence of denying scientists at large even a
dim notion of the almost incredible nature of some of the more
impressive Air Force-related UFO reports," he said in his
landmark paper, Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of
Inadequate UFO Investigations.[50]


President Carter and NASA

Less than a decade later, President Jimmy Carter attempted to
reopen the door to scientific inquiry into unidentified flying
objects, partly due to his own sighting for which he filed a
report. In July 1977, his Science Advisor Frank Press wrote to
NASA Administrator Robert Frosch recommending that NASA set up a
"a small panel of inquiry" to see if there were any "new
significant findings" since the Condon Report. "The focal point
for the UFO question ought to be NASA," he said Frosch's initial
response was positive and open, and he began the process of
internal review of the request.

The Air Force, which claimed to have had been out of the UFO
business since 1969, seemed to have some concerns. Colonel
Charles E. Senn, Chief of the Community Relations Division at
the Air Force, stated in a September letter to NASA's Lieutenant
General Duward L. Crow, "I sincerely hope that you are
successful in preventing a reopening of UFO investigations."[51]

NASA eventually turned down the White House request from the
President's office. Frosch said that NASA needed "bona fide
physical evidence from credible sources." Due to the absence of
such evidence, he said that, "we have not been able to devise a
sound scientific procedure for investigating these phenomena."
Therefore, no steps would be taken.

Dr. Richard C. Henry, professor of astrophysics at Johns Hopkins
University, was then Deputy Director of NASA's Astrophysics
Division and privy to some of the decision making process. In a
1988 essay for the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Henry
takes issue with Frosch's claim of "an absence of tangible or
physical evidence."[52]He says there was an abundance of
relevant evidence at the time.[53]

Henry says Frosch's statement denying the existence of a sound
scientific protocol was also false. "The National Academy of
Sciences endorsed the Condon study of UFO's, and specifically
endorsed their procedures (protocol). It hardly does for us to
say no sound protocol is possible!" he wrote in a memo to NASA
Space Science Administrator Noel Hinners. "The point is, that to
be meaningful the protocol must cover the possibility that the
UFO phenomenon is due in part to intelligences far beyond our
own."

Although he outlined some possibilities, Henry was not able to
draw a definite conclusion as to why NASA turned down the
request from the President of the United States.[54]


Raising the issue at the United Nations

Between 1975 and 1978, Sir Eric M. Gairy, Prime Minister of
Grenada, proposed to the United Nations General Assembly that
the UN establish "an agency or a department of the United
Nations for undertaking, coordinating, and disseminating the
results of research into Unidentified Flying Objects and related
phenomena."[55]

With his associate Dr. Jacques Vallee and Lt Col. Larry Coyne, a
US Army pilot who almost collided with a UFO in December, 1978,
Hynek asked in a speech to the UN that it "provide a clearing
house procedure whereby the work already going on globally can
be brought together in a serious, concentrated approach to this
most outstanding challenge to current science." He pointed out
that UFOs had been reported in 133 member states of the UN and
that there existed 1,300 cases where "there appears physical
evidence of the immediate presence of the UFO."

Hynek highlighted a new French study, conducted by scientists
from many disciplines in cooperation with the Gendarmerie under
the auspices of the Centre National d'=C9tudes Spatiales (CNES),
the French equivalent of NASA. The case studies were "exemplary
and far superior to the previous studies in other countries_the
implications for science and the public at large of this French
investigation are profound," he said.

Hynek's remarks reflected the sad state of affairs for many
American scientists who dared to take an interest in UFOs. These
individuals were associated with "large and prestigious
scientific organizations, both government and private" which
"are silent or even officially derisive about the UFO
phenomenon," Hynek told the United Nations. Those with "intimate
knowledge of the UFO phenomenon are restrained by organizational
policy to remain officially silent about their interest and in
private work with UFO matters."[56]

Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper also asked the United Nations
for "a top level, coordinated program to scientifically collect
and analyze data from all over earth_"[57] But like the
Congressional hearings of 1968, the proposals never went
anywhere.


Recent developments and high-level foreign interest

Regardless of the consistent disregard by key U.S. institutions,
the UFO problem would not go away. In the 1980's, two
extraordinary cases involving the landing of objects leaving
physical evidence were documented by military personnel and
scientists in England[58] and France.[59]

"This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation
and not the subject of rubbishing by tabloid newspapers," said
England's former Chief of the Defense Staff and five-star
Admiral Lord Hill-Norton in 2000. He was responding to his
government's public dismissal of the multiple-witnessed landing
of a glowing triangular craft that left three depressions at
Bentwaters Air Force base in 1980.[60] Deputy Base Commander Lt.
Col. Charles I. Halt provided a detailed description of the
objects, the landing, and the physical evidence in a classified
Air Force memo.[61]

Events in the U.S. were also significant, although barely
noticed by the media. In March 1997, hundreds of people across
Arizona reported seeing huge triangular objects, hovering
silently in the night sky. One series of lights were caught on
videotape. Following a thwarted effort by Phoenix City
Councilwoman Frances Barwood to investigate, a U.S District
court demanded a search for information from the Department of
Defense about these aircraft. Despite irrefutable documentation
of the event, DoD responded that it could not find anything
about the existence of the triangles. This heightened citizen's
fears: How could our government not know about something huge
flying low over major population centers?[62] Even Senator John
McCain acknowledged that this incident, known as the "Phoenix
Lights," has "never been fully explained."[63]

In 2000, four policemen at different locations in St. Claire
County, Illinois, witnessed a similar craft exhibiting extreme
rapid motion, again unacknowledged by nearby Scott Air Force
Base or the Federal Aviation Administration.[64]

Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied physics at
Stanford University and emeritus director of Stanford's Center
for Space Science and Astrophysics, has taken the lead in
reactivating a scientific evaluation of the UFO phenomenon. He
conducted a 1975 survey of the American Astronomical Society and
found that 75% of the respondents wished to see more information
on the subject published in scientific journals. Due to the fact
that the journals rejected papers on the UFO problem out of
hand, Sturrock founded the Society for Scientific Exploration
(SSE) and its Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), which
began publication in 1987. With associates in more than 40
countries, the JSE provides a forum for the presentation and
debate of topics that are not otherwise discussed in scientific
societies.[65]

Sturrock is perhaps one of the most eminent scientists ever to
apply the conventional scientific method to the UFO phenomenon.
He won the 1986 Hale Prize in Solar Physics from the American
Astronomical Society, the Arctowski medal in 1990 from the
National Academy of Sciences, and the 1992 Space Sciences Award
from the 40,000 member American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics for his "major contribution to the fields of
geophysics, solar physics and astrophysics, leadership in the
space science community, and dedication to the pursuit of
knowledge."

In 1997, Sturrock initiated and directed a four-day workshop at
the Pocantico Conference Center in Tarrytown, New York, funded
by philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller. The purpose of the
conference was to rigorously review purported physical evidence
associated with UFO reports, in order to assess whether the
further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is likely
to help solve the UFO problem.

Seven investigators presented cases with photographic evidence;
luminosity estimates; radar evidence; interference with
automobile functioning; interference with aircraft equipment;
apparent gravitational or inertial effects; ground traces;
injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on witnesses; and
analysis of debris.

A review panel of nine distinguished scientists from diverse
fields (mostly "decidedly skeptical agnostics" who did not have
prior involvement with UFOs, according to Sturrock) reviewed the
presentations and provided a carefully worded summary. The panel
was "not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently
unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an
extraterrestrial intelligence." Continued careful evaluation of
UFO reports was recommended. "New data, scientifically acquired
and analyzed" could provide useful information allowing physical
scientists "to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem."

In contradiction to the Condon summary, the panel concluded that
the UFO problem is not simple, and "whenever there are
unexplained observations, there is the possibility that
scientists will learn something new by studying these
observations."[66]


Pilots continue to report sightings of unidentified aerial
phenomena

A few years later, Dr. Richard Haines, a retired senior
aerospace scientist from NASA-Ames Research Center and formerly
NASA's Chief of the Space Human Factors Office, authored a
report documenting over one hundred cases of pilot encounters
with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) that raise safety
concerns, including fifty-six near misses.

Haines had spent thirty years developing a 3,400 case,
international database of first hand sightings by commercial,
military and private pilots. His independent study "Aviation
Safety in America - A Previously Neglected Factor" also draws on
FAA, NTSB and NASA files.[67]

With an international team
of scientists and aviation specialists, he recently founded the National=
 Aviation Reporting Center on
Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), which facilitates pilot reporting and studies=
 a wide range of aerial
phenomena impacting aviation safety.

Pilots represent the world's most experienced and credible observers of air=
 traffic with extensive
specialized training. In the study, they report sightings of varied=
 geometric forms displaying colors and
lights and conducting high-speed maneuvers that are inconsistent with known=
 aircraft or natural
phenomena.

Pilots and crew members report that the objects approached and
paced their aircraft at relatively near distances, disabling on
board instrumentation. Sometimes speeding objects narrowly
avoided a head-on collision by a sudden, 90-degree turn. On
other occasions, pilots made sudden, evasive changes in their
flight paths due to the object's proximity or dynamic behavior.
Cockpit distraction is always a concern "when the crew is faced
with an extremely bizarre, unexpected and prolonged luminous
and/or solid phenomena cavorting near their aircraft," says the
report.

Haines says that the hundreds of UAP reports he has analyzed,
some dating back to the 1940's, "appear to suggest that they are
associated with a very high degree of intelligence, deliberate
flight control, and advanced energy management."

The study documents the ridicule and "psychological negative
feedback system" that pilots have faced since the 1950's due the
official debunking policy. Most pilots never file reports at
all.[68]

In 1986, veteran Japan Airlines Captain Kenju Terauchi and his
crew encountered a huge craft over Alaska reported in the media
and investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
"Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face,
shooting off lights," reported Terauchi. "The inside cockpit
shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Terauchi's
reporting of the incident resulted in his temporary dismissal,
despite the FAA determination that he was stable, competent and
professional.[69]

John Callahan, former Division Chief of the Accidents and
Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington, D.C., has in his
possession the radar recorded data, air traffic control voice
transcripts, FAA report, and computer printouts of the Terauchi
event. He says he attended a meeting about the incident with the
FBI, the CIA, and President Reagan's Scientific Study team in
which he was told, "this event never happened, we were never
here and you are all sworn to secrecy."[70]

"I saw a UFO chase a Japanese 747 across the sky for over half
an hour on radar. And it's faster than anything that I know of
in our Government," said the high level FAA official in 2001.
"It still bothers me that I've seen all this, I know all this,
and I'm walking around with the answer, and nobody wants to ask
the question to get the answer."[71]


International openness vs. U.S. secrecy

Other countries, whose governments are open about their interest
in getting the answer, have challenged the policy of official
secrecy in the United States.

The French space agency CNES has been the only government agency
to conduct a consistent, non-military investigation into UFO
incidents for over twenty years. It's project first called
GEPAN[13] (Groupe d'Etudes des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non-
identifies) was renamed SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des
Phenomenes de Rentrees Atmospheriques) in 1988.[72]

In 1999, four-star General Bernard Norlain, former commander of
the French Tactical Air Force, and other retired generals and
admirals from the French Institute of Higher Studies for
National Defense; Jean Jacques Velasco, head of SEPRA; Andre
Lebeau, former head of CNES, and a team of scientists and
engineers, released an historic study titled UFOs and Defense:
What Should We Prepare For? The group called themselves the
COMETA, meaning "Committee for In-depth Studies."[73]

The group spent three years examining nearly 500 international
aeronautical sightings and radar/visual cases, and previously
undisclosed pilots' reports. Their study drew on data from
official sources, government authorities, and the Air Forces of
other countries.

Confirming the aviation safety concerns of the Haines study, one
multi-witness case presented by the study involved a 1994 Air
France sighting of an object that instantaneously disappeared,
as recorded on radar; another described a 1995 Aerolineas
Argentinas Boeing 727 encounter with a luminous object that
extinguished airport lights as the plane prepared to land.

The authors' note that about 5 percent of sightings on which
there is solid documentation cannot be easily attributed to
earthly sources, such as secret military exercises. This 5
percent seem "to be completely unknown flying machines with
exceptional performances that are guided by a natural or
artificial intelligence," they say. Some scientists have
developed theoretical models for travel from one solar system to
another and for technology that could be used to propel the
vehicles, the report points out.[74]

The best explanation is "the extraterrestrial hypothesis," the
report concludes. Although not categorically proven, "strong
presumptions exist in its favor and if it is correct, it is
loaded with significant consequences."

To address the problem, the COMETA urged international action.
It recommended that France establish "sectorial cooperation
agreements with interested European and foreign countries" on
the matter of UFOs. The European Union should undertake
diplomatic action with the United States "exerting useful
pressure to clarify this crucial issue, which must fall within
the scope of political and strategic alliances." The group
openly challenged US denial of the reality of UFOs.[75]

In 1997, the Chilean government formed the Committee for the
Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA) under the direction
of the Ministerial Department of Civil Aeronautics (DGAC), the
equivalent of our FAA. Official observations of anomalous aerial
phenomena at a remote Chilean airport prompted this action,
following official acknowledgement that unidentified objects
were flying over national territory.

The agency uses "serious, objective and scientific analysis to
determine if these phenomena have meant any risk to the security
of aerial operations," says CEFAA executive secretary Gustavo
Rodr=EDguez Navarro, a retired air traffic controller.[76]

Like the members of the COMETA, Ricardo Bermudez Sanhuesa,
General of Chile's Air Brigade and President of the CEFAA,
believes that international cooperation is important "to provide
an incentive for universities and scientific organizations to
work in multidisciplinary teams in all the branches of [14] this
science" and to establish "a uniform method of investigation
processes and analysis." General Bermudez says that CEFAA
contacted the United States government on two occasions but was
ignored each time.[77]

Peru has also begun conducting official, yet public, UFO
investigations. In December 2001, the Peruvian Air Force created
the Office for the Investigation of Anomalous Activity, under
the direction of Air Force Commander Jose Luis Chamorro.

"There are several mysteries that we believe are highly
important and which merit our full attention," Chamorro says.
"If we can arrive at definitive conclusions, our work will be
highly beneficial to Peru and all of humanity."

Unexplainable events in the sky are frequent in Peru, Chamorro
says. Out of hundreds of calls coming into his office every
month, about a dozen are credible sightings with no easy
explanation. Chamorro told the Miami Herald last September that
a video taken in Chulucanas, Piura in late 2001 shows a huge
ship sitting in the sky for nearly two hours. "The ship made no
noise and did not move. You can see the shape, which includes
even windows," he said.[78]


Scientists call for systematic investigation

Given the irrefutable evidence of extraordinary objects in the
skies around planet Earth, and the high standing of those who
have requested further scientific investigation, what stands in
the way? And what can be done to overcome the obstacles?

According to Peter Sturrock, scientists face a lack of sustained
funding for research; harbor a false assumption that there is no
data or evidence; have a perception that the topic is "not
respectable;" and believe that the Condon report settled the
question. Despite overwhelming public demand - which often
drives scientific research - scientists simply aren't motivated.

Sturrock says that the single biggest obstacle to the study of
UFOs has been the paucity of available physical evidence. To
remedy this situation, he proposes improving techniques for the
retrieval of physical evidence through field investigations and
its laboratory analysis; planned experiments in the lab testing
physical effects; systematic cataloguing of case reports and a
search for patterns in the data; and the development of theories
based on the facts using scientific inference.

"In principle, we can prove a hypothesis not only by finding
strong evidence in its favor, but also by finding strong
evidence against every other possibility," he says.[79] This is
the approach taken by the French COMETA group in the
determination of their hypothesis in 1999.

The need for physical evidence points to the critical nature of
a renewed FOIA initiative into Project Moon Dust and Operation
Blue Fly, the secret Air Force units which retrieved objects of
unknown origin, as revealed in government documents released in
the 1990's. So far, scientists have been denied the fragments
and the final determinations of these investigations.[80]

Because the UFO problem makes them uncomfortable, scientists are
prone to interpreting the issue theoretically and then giving a
theoretical reason for dismissing it. For example, Astronomer
Francis Drake stated in 1998 that if UFO reports are real, they
must be due to extraterrestrial spacecraft. However,
interstellar travel is impossible, therefore the reports must be
discounted. This argument boils down to: It cannot happen;
therefore it does not happen. "In normal scientific research,
observational evidence takes precedence over theory," says
Sturrock, "if it does happen, it can happen."[81]

Computer scientist and astrophysicist Jacques Vallee, who has
traveled the world studying the UFO problem for decades and was
a close associate of Hynek, points out that a key problem is
that scientists need journals and "unbiased venues" other than
JSE to debate this increasingly deep and complex problem.[82]
"New radical hypotheses may be needed to study the problem,
beyond the limited polarization between skepticism and belief in
'extraterrestrials,'" he says.[83]

Dr. Bernard Haisch, Director of the California Institute for
Physics and Astrophysics and author of over a hundred published
papers, agrees. "I propose that true skepticism is called for
today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the
closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the
skeptic." Haisch was the editor of the JSE for twelve years.
"Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles
presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual
honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements," he says.
"To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing.
To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it
nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your
homework!"[84]

The COMETA believes the central barrier to scientific progress
lies in the lap of the United States. The world's superpower
ignores the research and ridicules the UFO phenomenon. "Only
increasing pressure from public opinion, possibly supported by
the results of independent researchers, by more or less
calculated disclosures, or by a sudden rise in UFO
manifestations, might perhaps induce U.S. leaders and persons of
authority to change their stance," the group states.

The French group notes that conventional scientists are burdened
by the prevailing concept of "anthropocentric humanism"- the
belief that man is "the best nature can produce in this small
corner of the galaxy" and remains the sole controller of his
destiny. To acknowledge the possible existence of beings outside
our planet with vastly superior technological capabilities and
scientific understanding is both "frightening and unacceptable"
and would leave us feeling infantile. "The social position of
the scientific elite would be considerably compromised," their
report says.[85]

A more contemporary - perhaps radical by some standards -
 perspective is provided by Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Richard
C. Henry. "We humans are newborn babes_our Earth is merely a
minute portion of an inconceivably vast universe [of which] we
are only an utterly unimportant element," he says. It is
possible that other civilizations are visiting us, for reasons
we can't conceive. He has a message to the scientists of our
planet: "Collect and collate evidence of anomalous phenomena!
What kind of a civilization would not collect and collate
evidence of anomalous phenomena? Only a foolish and short-
sighted civilization indeed!"[86]


It's time for a scientific study of UFOs

Despite intense public interest and the weight of fifty years of
evidence provided by scientists, pilots, military officers and
government agencies around the world, there has been no
independent, federally financed scientific research conducted on
these phenomena since the flawed and biased 1969 Condon report.
We are long overdue for an ongoing, comprehensive study in the
United States that leading scientists have been requesting for
decades.

The national security argument is no longer acceptable as a
justification for U.S. government withholding of reports of
events decades old. If sources and methods need protecting, this
is legitimate. If information on Soviet objects or man-made
technology is sensitive, this is also understandable. Neither of
these aspects is of concern to the matter at hand. Scientists
must be able to access all other information and any physical
samples in the possession of U.S. government agencies. We have
evidence of objects and bizarre anomalies in our skies that
appear not to be natural or man made. This is a remarkable state
of affairs. Clearly, it is worthy of the highest level of
scientific exploration.

American scientists stand ready and waiting to take this on, if
only the resources are provided. The public appears ready to
support the research with its tax dollars. It is clear that the
policies and attitudes of certain government officials and
agencies must change so that the investigation into these
mysterious phenomena can "pass through nature's looking glass"
along with the other great discoveries of contemporary science.


Notes

1 Overbye, Dennis; "More Sci Than Fi, Physicists Create
Antimatter" New York Times, Sept. 9, 2002.

2 Roper Number: C205-008232 , "Americans Beliefs and personal
Experiences, UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life," September 2002 by
RoperASW via OmniTel, on 1,021 male and female adults.

3 Headquarters 4602D AISS, Draft "Guide to Identification,
Unidentified Flying Objects" Date unknown. Contained in Clifford
S. Stone, UFOs are Real (SPI Books, 1997).

4 For starters: Edward J.Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1956); J. Allen
Hynek, The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry (Marlowe &
Company, NY, 1972,1998); David Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in
America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975); the files
of Project Blue Book, available through the National Archives or
in Brad Steiger, editor Project Blue Book: The Top Secret UFO
Findings Revealed, (Balantine Books, NY,1976); Clifford E.
Stone, UFOs are Real (SPI Books, 1997); Peter A. Sturrock, The
UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner Books,
NY, 1999); UFOs and Defense: What are we prepared for? The
French Association COMETA, study from the Institute of Higher
Studies for National Defence, July 1999.

5 The French Association COMETA, study from the Institute of
Higher Studies for National Defence, July 1999, estimates 5% of
sightings are true UFOs. Other estimates are higher. In 1985, J.
Allen Hynek put the figure at 20% (interview by Dennis Stacy.)
Peter Sturrock points out that 29% of the cases in the Condon
report of 1969 remain unidentified today. It is impossible to
know the exact figure.

6 General Nathan F. Twining to Commander, Air Material Command,
"AMC Opinion concerning `Flying Discs'" 23 September 1947
(Contained in Edwin U. Condon, Project Director Scientific Study
of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1969) p. 894-95.

7 Ruppelt, pp.62-63; Hynek UFO Experience p.173.

8 W.P. Keay, FBI Memorandum "Flying Saucers" July 29, 1952
(contained in Bruce Maccabee, UFO FBI Connection: The Secret
History of the Government's Cover-Up (Llewellyn Publications, MN
2000).

9 W.P. Keay, FBI Memorandum "Flying Saucers" October 27, 1952
(Maccabee, Ibid).

10 H. Marshall Chadwell, memorandum for Director of Central
Intelligence, Dec 2 1952.

11 H. Marshall Chadwell, memo for Director of Central
Intelligence "Flying Saucers" 11 Sept. 1952, p.3-4.

12 "Unidentified Flying Objects" 4 Dec 1952 IAC-M-90.

13 H. Marshall Chadwell, memorandum for Director of Central
Intelligence "Unidentified Flying Objects" Dec. 10 1952.

14 F .C. Durant, Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel
on Unidentified Flying Objects, Convened by Office of Scientific
Intelligence, CA January 14-18, 1953.

15 Hynek, UFO Report p.23.

16 J Allen Hynek, "Special Report on Conferences with
Astronomers on Identified Flying Objects" to Air Technical
Intelligence Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, August 6,
1952, p.18, 20.

17 Hynek, UFO Experience p.169.

18 Ruppelt pp 160-167; Peter Carlson, "Alien Armada!50 Years
Ago, Unidentified Flying Objects From Way Beyond the Beltway
Seized the Capital's Imagination" Washington Post, July 21, 2002

19 Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 "Analysis of
Unidentified Flying Objects," Project No. 10073 (Air technical
Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 5
May 1955); Hynek, UFO Report, p.272.

20 Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 "Analysis of
Unidentified Flying Objects."

21 Air Force Releases Study on Unidentified Flying Objects,
Department of Defense, Office of Public Information, Washington
DC, No. 1053-55 Oct. 25, 1955.

22 Ibid. p. 274-275.

23 Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics,
U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress "Symposium on
Unidentified Flying Objects" July 29, 1968 (U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 1968) p.1.

24 Ibid. p. 32; 83.

25 Ibid. p. 121;124.

26 Ibid. p. 14-15.

27 Robert J. Low, memo to E.James Archer and Thurston E. Manning
"Some Thoughts on the UFO Project," August 9, 1966. Contained in
Marcia S. Smith with George D. Havas, revisions and updates,
Science Policy Research Division, The UGO Enigma Congressional
Research Service, June 20, 1983; Appendix C.

28 John Fuller, "Flying Saucer Fiasco," Look, May 14, 1968

29 Condon, Edward U., Project Director and Daniel S. Gillmor,
Editor Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Bantam,
NY, 1969) p.407.

30 Ibid. p. 164.

31 Ibid. p. 248.

32 Ibid p. 1.

33 Review of the University of Colorado Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects by a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences,
1969.

34 "Air Force Closes Study of UFO's" New York Times, Dec. 18, 1969.

35 Kuettner, J.P. et al "UFO: An Appraisal of the Problem, A
Statement by the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA" Astronautics and
Aeronautics, 8, No. 11.

36 Peter Sturrock., interview for "Out of the Blue," documentary
film produced and directed by James Fox, Tim Coleman, Boris
Zuboff, 2000

37 Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Release No. 1077-69 "Air Force to Terminate Project Blue
Book" Washington, DC December 17, 1969.

38 Wilbert B. Smith "Project Magnet Report" (Canadian Department
of Communications file 5010-4 vol.5) 1952, pp.10-11 (contained
in Stone, UFOs are Real).

39 Leslie Kean,"UFO theorists gain support abroad, but
repression at home," Boston Globe, May 21, 2000.

40 JCS Communication Center of the USDAQ Tehran Message 230630Z,
September 1976, released through the Department of Defense.
Also, Henry S. Shields "Now You See It, Now You Don't" Unites
States Air Force Security Service, MIJI Quarterly Report 3-78,
October 1978.

41 US State Department Cable, Jan. 29, 1979; (contained in Stone).

42 General Carroll H.Bolender, USAF memo, October 20, 1969.

43 AF News Release No. 1077-69, op cit.

44 England: Nick Pope, former Ministry of Defense official, Open
Skies, Closed Minds (Dell, 2000) and interview with former
Ministry of Defense Chief Lord-Hill Norton for "Out of the Blue"
produced and directed by James Fox, Tim Coleman, Boris Zuboff.
France: see COMETA report "UFO's and Defense: What Are we
Prepared For?" and work of SEPRA at CNES. Chile: work of CEFAA.

45 24th NORAD Region Senior Director's Log, November 1975; NORAD
Command Director's Log, November, 1975.

46 Ward Sinclair and Art Harris, "UFOs visited U.S. bases,
reports say" Washington Post, 1979.

47 Iran: JCS Communication Center and Sheilds, op.cit. Peru:
Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff message, June 3
1980. A round UFO initially hovering over air base was chased by
an SU-22 and fired upon at close range but the UFO out-ran the
plane.

48 Authorized by Belgian Ministry of Defense, Paris-Match, July
5, 1990. Radar-images of UFO of March 30 and 31, 1990.
Interviews with Colonel De Brouwer, Chief of Operations, Belgium
Air Force. In three cases, when pilots achieved radar lock on
with UFO, UFO drastically changed its behavior with a sudden
dive at very high speed with no sonic boom.

49 AF News Release No. 1077-69, op cit.

50 Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, editors UFO's - A Scientific
Debate (Norton Library by arrangement with Cornell University
Press, 1974).

51 Charles E. Senn, letter to Duward L. Crow, September 1, 1977

52 Richard C. Henry, "UFOs and NASA" Journal of Scientific
Exploration (Vol.2, No. 2 pp.93-142, 1988); letters (except
Senn) included in appendices.

53 A 1968 State Department telegram (released under a FOIA
request for Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly) verifies
that samples from objects of unknown origin were sent to NASA.
It states that divers found a metal "dome-shaped object" nose
down on the ocean floor off Cape Town, "scorched under
tremendous heat."

According to the document, NASA found that the object consisted
of "almost pure aluminum" but could offer no "clue" as to its
origin or function

54 Henry, op.cit.

55 Smith with Havas, The UGO Enigma Congressional Research
Service op. cit. p. 100.

56 J. Allen Hynek, speech to the United Nations, Nov. 27th 1978.
Astrophycisist and field investigator Jacques Vallee and Lt Col.
Larry Coyne, a US Army pilot who almost collided with a UFO,
also presented statements.

57 L. Gordon Cooper, letter to Ambassador Griffith, Mission of
Grenada to the United Nations, Nov. 9, 1978

58 USAF Lt. Col. Charles I. Halt, Bentwaters Base Commander to
British Ministry of Defence, memorandum "Unexplained Lights"
Jan.13, 1980.

59 Jean-Jacques Velasco, "Report on the Analysis of Anomalous
Physical Traces: The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case" Journal of
Scientific Exploration (Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990) Investigated by
GEPAN which later became SEPRA of CNES. See also the French
COMETA report "UFOs and Defense: What Are We Prepared For?"
July, 1999.

60 Lord Hill Norton, interview for "Out of the Blue " op.cit.
For a first hand account of this incident, see

61 Charles I. Halt, Lt. Col, USAF, Memo, Department of the Air
Force, Headquarters 81st Combat Support Group, "Unexplained
Lights," Jan. 13, 1981

62 Associated Press, "Judge orders U.S. to provide additional
data in UFO case" Feb. 17, 2000; Kean, Boston Globe, op.cit.
Hynek's 1985 essay "The Roots of Complacency" provided at the
end of this report describes a similar series of events that
occurred in New York State in the 1980's.

63 FoxNews, Feb 29, 2000.

64 Stephanie Simon, Folks Know Truth Is Out There, but Flying
Object Is Still Unidentified" Los Angeles Times, January 18,
2000; Heather Ratcliffe, "UFO sighting brings media attention,
investigative team to Southern Illinois" Post-Dispatch, January
12, 2000.

65 Peter A. Sturrock, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the
Physical Evidence (Warner Books, NY, 1999).

66 Ibid. Members of the Scientific Review Panel: V. R. Eshleman
(Co-Chair), T. E. Holzer (Co-Chair), J. R. Jokipii, F. Louange,
H. J. Melosh, J. J. Papike, G. Reitz, C. R. Tolbert, and B.
Veyret. Investigators: R. F. Haines, I. von Ludwiger, M.
Rodeghier, J. F. Schuessler, E. Strand, M. D. Swords, J. F.
Vallee, and J-J. Velasco

67 Richard F. Haines, "Aviation Safety in America - A Previously
Neglected Factor" NARCAP Report 01-2000, October 15, 2000; also
see Leslie Kean, "Pilot encounters with UFOs: New study
challenges secrecy and denial," The Providence Journal, May 3,
2001.

68 Ibid.

69 UPI, "JAL Airliner Sighting Over Alaska," 1986; For a
detailed research report with additional references on this case
see Bruce Maccabee, "The Fantastic Flight Of JAL 1628"

70 John Callahan, "UFO incident involving a Japanese Boeing 747-
- November 1986;" presentation at George Washington University
symposium, Nov. 8, 2002.

71 John Callahan, interview for Disclosure (Crossing Point Inc,
2001).

72 See Sturrock "The GEPAN/SEPRA Project" by F. Louange and J.
J. Velasco, p. 131-136.

73 COMETA (an association) "UFOs and Defense: What Should We
Prepare For?" First released in French in a special issue of the
magazine VSD, July 1999. Other members are: General Denis Letty
of the Air Force, former auditor (FA) of IHEDN, General Bruno
Lemoine of the Air Force (FA of IHEDN); Admiral Marc Merlo (FA
of IHEDN); Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney
at law (FA of IHEDN); General Pierre Bescond, engineer for
armaments (FA of IHEDN); Denis Blancher, Chief National Police
superintendant at the Ministry ot the Interior; Christian
Marchal, chief engineer of the national "corps des Mines",
Research Director at the "National Office of Aeronautical
Research" (ONERA); General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics,
engineer for armaments. Other contributors include Francois
Louange, President of Fleximage, specialist of photo analysis;
General Joseph Domange of the Air Force, general delegate of the
Association of auditors at IHEDN.

74 Ibid. This has been established by numerous contemporary
physicists, such as best-selling authors Dr. Brian Greene and
Dr. Michio Kaku.

75 Ibid.

76 Gustavo Rodr=EDguez Navarro, personal interview with Leslie
Kean, Dec 31, 2000.

77 Ricardo Bermudez Sanhuesa, personal interview with Leslie
Kean, Jan. 31, 2001. According to Bermudez, in 1998, the CEFAA
contacted the U.S. Embassy in Chile expressing the Committee's
interest in working with a U.S. agency "to share experiences,
policies, procedures, etc. regarding this topic." In July, 2000,
the CEFAA sent the U.S. Embassy a request for consultation with
the Pentagon. "Both requests went unanswered," General Bermudez
said.

78 Lucien O. Chauvin, "Peruvians seek discovery and profit in
UFOs" Miami Herald, Sept. 28, 2002.

79 Sturrock, op.cit.,p. 163.

80 SCI FI Channel, Press release, Oct. 22, 2002. "The SCI FI
Channel has joined with John Podesta, President Clinton's former
chief of staff, to call for more declassification of government
records. As part of its advocacy effort, SCI FI is backing a
Freedom of Information Act initiative to obtain government
records on cases involving retrieval of objects of unknown
origin by the secret Air Force operations Project Moon Dust and
Operation Blue Fly. Assisting SCI FI in its FOIA effort is the
Washington, D.C. law firm of Lobel, Novins and Lamont."

81 Sturrock, op. cit., p.160.

82 Jacques Vallee, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human
Deception (Ballantine Books, NY, 1991) p.284.

83 Jacques Vallee, "Report from the Field: Scientific Issues in
the UFO Phenomenon," presentation at George Washington
University symposium, Nov. 8, 2002. For two papers by Vallee,
see JSE Vol. 12, no. 3 (1998) "Estimates of Optical Power Output
in six cases of unexplained aerial objects with defined
luminosity characteristics," pp. 345-358 and "Physical Analyses
in ten cases of unexplained aerial objects with material
samples," pp. 359-376.

84 Bernard Haisch, message on www.ufoskeptic.org "An Information
site on the UFO phenomenon by and for professional scientists."
September, 2002.

85 COMETA, op.cit.

86 Richard C. Henry, "Human Beings in the Galaxy: _or Babes in
the Woods," presentation at George Washington University
symposium, Nov. 8, 2002.


Appendix

"The Roots of Complacency"
An unpublished essay by Dr. J. Allen Hynek

Dr. J. Allen Hynek left this essay on a diskette at the home of
his friend Dr. Willy Smith on August 30, 1985. At the time, he
was investigating the Hudson Valley "boomerang" sightings in New
York, and this was a draft preface for a book about them. A few
weeks after writing this piece, Hynek went into surgery. His
health rapidly declined in the ensuing months, and he died in
April, 1986. The investigation into the Hudson Valley sightings
was published in the 1987 book NIGHT SIEGE, authored by Hynek,
Bob Pratt and Philip J. Imbrogno. As detailed in the book, the
first incident was reported on December 31, 1982, and the
sightings continued until the book's publication, with a
concentration of incidents during the summer of 1984. "The Roots
of Complacency" (as Hynek himself titled it) is quite different
from the preface to NIGHT SIEGE in its passion and intimate,
unedited style. In what appears to be his last essay, Hynek
questions the underlying cause of the very dilemma that this
paper addresses.

- L.K.

Something truly astonishing happened..... Not far from New York
City, along the Hudson Valley, as hundreds of astonished people
looked up, many driving along the Taconic Parkway, they saw
something no one had ever seen before.

Some called it a "Space-ship from outer space" (for want of
anything better) but it was generally described by numbers of
competent, professional persons as startlingly brilliant lights,
in the form of a "V," or Boomerang, silent, slowly-moving, and
very large close-by object. It has often popularly been called
the "Westchester (County) Boomerang."

The world has never known about this, even though the event
happened not once but several times, and over the course of
several years. To all intents and purposes, this was a non-
event. The media across the world has remained dumb. Local
papers, radios and TV's, it is true, did momentarily carry spots
along with the daily news, but there the news just vanished.

How is it possible that in the United States, where even trivial
events are often flashed across the world, only one TV and radio
network carried an account of this utterly astounding event?
Far, far lesser stories are spewed forth across the world!

Could it possibly be that the whole thing just never happened?
No: many times there was good, but extremely local, media
coverage; many hundreds have personally attested to us, and to
many others, that the "Westchester Boomerang" was most
undeniably, very truly real to them. Furthermore, many witnesses
at a given time were geographically separate, and unknown to
each 24 other. Cars along the Taconic Parkway, a well traveled
highway, stopped, and passengers looked in amazement, many
frightened and bewildered at the spectacle.

Police department "blotters" proved that many calls came to
several local police stations, and we have tape recordings of a
number of the police involved. The Boomerang was undeniably
real; it was not a chimera!

Yes, something astonishing transpired, but was no one "minding
the store," was everyone asleep at the switch? What about law
enforcement agencies (whose duty is certainly to alert and
assist when something amazing is afoot); what about civilian and
military personnel?

When hundreds of largely professional, affluent people, in
suburban areas, are astonished, awestruck, and many frightened
by what they could only regard as a very bizarre event, would
this not at least warrant and bring forth some comment from the
nation's media? And what about law officers, government
officials and... what of the FAA which supposedly monitors the
airwaves over which the "Boomerang" repeatedly flew, and thus
constituted a serious hazard, especially over the Taconic
Parkway?

And what of scientists, to whom these events should have been of
breathtaking scientific concern? But nothing... except, oh yes,
a writer so inept at his task that not once did he check, even
briefly, the voluminous tapes and other material amassed by the
present authors: a remarkable example of investigative
reporting.

His conclusion: the Boomerang was caused by nothing more than a
flight of small planes flying in formation, a totally untenable
conclusion in view of the facts. It would appear that we really
have TWO astounding stories, rather than just one... different
but related... and equally incomprehensible: the story of the
low-flying luminous Boomerang (in itself which could rank high
in the annals of science fiction... if it were science fiction!)
and the second, a totally unaccountable dereliction of duty (and
there seems to be no other word for it), a complete indifference
to accountability.

It was a malady which appeared to plunge all who encountered it,
EXCEPT the witnesses, into a deadly stupor. Such a malady, or
perhaps a virulent virus of apathy and indifference to duty,
could immobilize cities and a whole country. Of course, we don't
know what the Boomerang was really about, for:

-- the Police and other law enforcement officers were derelict
and failed in their duty to assist the many who called [in] fear
and danger, as well as in awe and wonder.

-- the FAA utterly failed to be concerned for air safety, flight
rules, navigation lights, when told that some utterly strange
and possibly menacing object was cruising close over streets and
houses.

-- the Military was derelict by not attending to public safety
and matters of National Defense (the country could have been
subtly invaded!)

-- the Scientists failed to uphold their "Hippocratic" oath of
science: they were derelict in following the quest [of] an
outstanding mystery.

-- the media, well, where were they? Truly derelict. Always avid
news hounds, rushing to their typewriters or microphones to rush
the news to the world (good, bad and trivial), but where were
they? Hardly any of the 50 States heard the Boomerang story.

Why? Utterly indifferent and apathetic? If so, why?

Of the two stories, that of the Boomerang is by far the more
directly told. Bizarre and fantastic though it may be (and is)
it merely needs competent retelling. The facts are on record.
=46rom the hundreds of cassette tapes in the thousands of
statements made by witnesses, the Boomerang is a matter of
record. But the second story, well, that is another matter.

This story is not at all directly told. Here there are no
cassette tapes, no clear cut descriptions, and no policeman, no
scientist, no military man, no media person, no FAA has recorded
why they were derelict. We can only infer, as one might infer
from the pages of history. We can only deduce and play
detective. And we must try, for this second story, more truly a
puzzle, could be of utmost importance to finding out how we, as
humans, act under stress, trauma, and fear... for the Boomerang
had all of these!

The puzzle has far more parts than the tale of the Boomerang. It
is, indeed, a part of a continuing story of mankind's pioneering
search for adventure and meaning, but repeatedly dashed and
frustrated by those who cannot look to the heights of the
pioneer: by the "it will never fly" or "it can't be done"
mentalities. These who always must say that since it can't be
done, there is no need to even think about it or even talk about
it.

Therein lies the spawning ground of indifference, of apathy, and
[of] dereliction of duty. All those who didn't follow through on
the Boomerang event were not willfully derelict: they were
merely the thousands of "it will never fly" and "it can't be
done" and so there is no need to think about it. The corollary
is: "Since it can't be done, whomever said it had been done,
were simply deluded... they must have been mistaken, and so no
need to look into it further." It is the failure to seek for the
light of the tunnel because there couldn't be a light.

Intellectual adventure is sterile when there is continual
inability to seek answer to challenges, to seek ways out of the
tunnel of indifference. In the story of the Boomerang, the FAA,
the media, scientists, politicians, the military.... all may
momentarily touch upon the mystery, but suddenly it appeared
that apathy saps further energy to incentive, and in its stead
is a great desire [for] nothing... it becomes a hotbed of
inertia... a great desire to do nothing, fobbing it all off in
the guise of a handy solution, like "planes in formation."

It is not as from a seeming direct desire to be in duty, but it
is more as though the call for duty has vanished, or as though
some bad fairy had administered a sleeping potion, an apathy
draught. How else might one hold that otherwise responsible law
enforcement, FAA, military, the media etc. would renege on their
duties?

There is a more realistic answer than calling upon some bad
fairy (though it would certainly fit the facts) and that is that
it all lies in our human (mental) nature. A psychologist would
express it more professionally, but it simply amounts to the
fact that the human mind has definite limits for acceptance and
accountability. In the history of science this syndrome has been
seen many times and in many ages. For instance, how often has it
occurred that totally revolutionary ideas, so novel at first as
to be utterly neglected or discarded... a form of apathy and
total indifference.

As a homely analogy, one might say that such a totally novel
idea "overheats the mental human circuits" and the fuse blows
(or the circuit-breaker cuts out) as a protective device for the
mind. The time is not yet right for the age and the new idea
might just as well not have been there in the first place.
Mankind was not yet able to handle it.

Thus when mankind is presented with a totally bizarre, shocking,
traumatic event (the Boomerang?), a mental circuit cuts out.
Instead of a challenge for action, there is a dead battery. This
is, of course, well known in individual cases of amnesia in, for
example, "shell shock": could it be that a collective amnesia or
apathy can come into play? If so, might it be possible that
collectively people can react traumatically, as to the
Westchester Boomerang, to a collective amnesia, whether they are
policemen, media people, the FAA etc.?

Whatever be the case, the effect is real. Many instances in
history.... and the Boomerang is its most recent and spectacular
example... when the breaking point of the collective mind
occurs, it must openly disregard patent evidence of the senses:
it can no longer encompass them within their normal borders. The
Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler in WW II is another sample:
people simply refused to accept, and were indifferent to the
evidence, because their minds couldn't bring themselves to
accept that such a Holocaust could possibly be, despite ample
evidence. It was also a "mental circuit breaker," a general
apathy and a will to indifference.

The Boomerang and the Holocaust are but striking samples of what
happens when the collective mind willfully disregards evidence,
when "it can't take it." The entire modern UFO syndrome is
another: ARTICLE; here we have utterly ample evidence of the
global nature of the UFO phenomenon. [In] thousands of instances
and over many countries, the evidence for the UFO phenomenon is
clear, but those in position of policy and authority (FAA,
educators, scientists etc) are deaf or purposely obtuse. Apathy
goes hand in hand with the ability to accept even the most inane
answers, anything whatever, just to stave off the necessity to
think.

So we cannot at the moment expect to do [but] little about the
wealth of material collected on the Westchester Boomerang (or
for the much more abundant wealth of UFO material). The circuits
are closed; apathy holds sway. But history has shown that in
time the information and questions dam breaks, sometimes
cataclysmically, and later, why, lo and behold, the pundits by a
complete irrational turn of fact, will say, "Oh, we knew this
all the time!"


The Author

Leslie Kean is an investigative journalist whose feature
stories, news analysis and opinion pieces have appeared in the
Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer,
International Herald Tribune, Globe and Mail (Canada), Sydney
Morning Herald, Kyoto Journal, The Journal of Scientific
Exploration, Burma Debate, The Nation, Providence Journal,
Sacramento Bee, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Vancouver Sun, the
Nation (Thailand), Internazionale (Italy), VSD (France), Irish
Independent, Bangkok Post, Gazette (Montreal), The Commercial
Appeal, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Journal of Commerce, St. Louis
Post Dispatch, San Francisco Examiner, Cincinnati Enquirer,
Duluth News Tribune, Las Vegas Review Journal, San Francisco Bay
Guardian, The Progressive, IF Magazine. Her stories have been
syndicated through Knight-Ridder, Scripps-Howard, New York Times
Wire Service, Pacific News Service and the National Publishers
Association. Since 1998, Kean has been an associate producer and
co-host for an investigative news program on KPFA Radio, a
Pacifica station broadcast from the San Francisco Bay Area.

Her books and publications include Perspectives: Drugs and
Society (Coursewise Publishing, Inc. 2000), Stone Soup for the
World (Conari Press, 1998), Drugs, Society and Behavior 98/99
(Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 1998), and Burma's Revolution of the
Spirit: The Struggle for Democratic Freedom and Dignity co-
authored with Alan Clements (Aperture, 1994; White Orchid Press,
1995, Thai and Burmese Editions).

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Ed Rothschild of PodestaMattoon for
his invaluable assistance with this report and Larry Landsman of
the SCI FI Channel for the invitation to write it. Most
importantly, gratitude is extended to the many diligent
researchers and courageous scientists who won't stop asking the
right questions.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com