131 lines
8.9 KiB
Plaintext
131 lines
8.9 KiB
Plaintext
|
THE UFO: FORTY YEARS ON
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
by
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
John D. Aultman
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting in 1947 began the modern era of the UFO
|
|||
|
phenomenon. Since Arnold's sighting the UFO has been the subject of num-
|
|||
|
erous books, articles, debates, and controversy. We have seen stories of
|
|||
|
trips to Mars and beyond, claims of messages from the aliens, and claims
|
|||
|
that the UFO is nonexistent. Yet, the UFO has survived for four decades,
|
|||
|
and we still see the whole gamut of claims associated with it. As a layman
|
|||
|
who has observed the UFO phenomenon for over fourteen years, and who has
|
|||
|
studied its history, a number of thoughts have come to mind. Many of them
|
|||
|
may meet with mixed response from the UFO community, and some have been
|
|||
|
stated before. However, as the UFO and civilian UFO investigation enter
|
|||
|
their fifth decade, it is time that some serious attention is given to
|
|||
|
where both stand and what direction the future holds.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Just where does the UFO phenomenon and the UFO community stand? Over forty
|
|||
|
years a large number of unexplained cases have been collected. That the
|
|||
|
cases defy explanation can be seen in two lights. First, some probably
|
|||
|
have some known cause which is unforeseen because of lack of sufficient
|
|||
|
data due to insufficient observation or investigation. Second, some defy
|
|||
|
explanation because they either exceed our level of scientific development
|
|||
|
to explain, or they have an explanation within our comprehension, but
|
|||
|
which science is reluctant to accept. In a sizable portion of the unex-
|
|||
|
plained cases which have a sufficient amount of data the logical conclu-
|
|||
|
sion is the latter: either they defy explanation or science is unwilling
|
|||
|
to accept the possible explanations that can be offered. The majority of
|
|||
|
witnesses to UFOs are Joe Average, having given no attention to the sub-
|
|||
|
ject, or having scoffed at it at best. They have seen or experienced some-
|
|||
|
thing which they can not explain or comprehend, and which science either
|
|||
|
cannot explain or is unwilling to. Most witnesses seek no personal gain
|
|||
|
from their experience, although some have chosen to do so.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
From the unexplained cases with sufficient data, one can extract a fair
|
|||
|
amount of theoretical data about the UFO and its possible characteristics.
|
|||
|
We know that it can outperform any man-made aircraft, and perform maneu-
|
|||
|
vers which are beyond our level of technology. They can be detected by
|
|||
|
radar, and some cases indicate an ability to elude radar. We know this is
|
|||
|
possible by recent developments in our own technology, although whether
|
|||
|
ours is the same as the theoretical UFO cannot be said. We also know that
|
|||
|
they may have left physical traces, such as burned circles, radiation, and
|
|||
|
landing gear imprints, as well as possible physical effects on witnesses.
|
|||
|
Additional, but less reliable, speculation can be made in such areas as
|
|||
|
human abductions, cattle mutilations, and appearance of occupants. All
|
|||
|
such speculation is interesting, and some of it may, in time, prove to be
|
|||
|
on the right track, or one that is close to being correct. However, it is
|
|||
|
still only speculation, none can be proven conclusively.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The UFO has left, in forty years, a sizable number of eyewitnesses, and
|
|||
|
some interesting, but unconfirmed, circumstantial evidence. All of it adds
|
|||
|
up to a case which can be very convincing of the reality of the UFO phenom-
|
|||
|
enon, if not the UFO itself. The analogy has been used, with some validi-
|
|||
|
ty, that if an attorney were preparing a case from comparable evidence,
|
|||
|
that they would be assured of winning their case. The evidence collected
|
|||
|
so far is convincing, and is enough so that the case for the reality of
|
|||
|
the UFO phenomenon would be likely to be won. However, a number of things
|
|||
|
must be held in mind. First, even though the evidence for the validity of
|
|||
|
the phenomenon is convincing, none of it, to date, is convincing enough to
|
|||
|
support any theory that would explain the phenomenon. Second, although sci-
|
|||
|
ence and law work on similar rules, science differs in how it approaches
|
|||
|
problems, especially those which would challenge accepted concepts of the
|
|||
|
universe and how it works. And the reality of the UFO phenomenon, and the
|
|||
|
implications of that reality. Offer too much that would defy a number of
|
|||
|
aspects of the current scientific model of the universe. While civilian
|
|||
|
UFO research has produced much in the way of eyewitness and circumstantial
|
|||
|
evidence, it has failed to produce the one thing needed to force scientif-
|
|||
|
ic acceptance of the UFO phenomenon: hard evidence. The burden of proof of
|
|||
|
the UFO phenomenon today rests totally in the hands of civilian research.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As the UFO phenomenon has changed, so has civilian investigation. Groups
|
|||
|
and individuals have come and gone, with purposes as diverse as their
|
|||
|
claims. Some told of fabulous trips to Mars and beyond, while others spoke
|
|||
|
of all important messages from the aliens. Others sought personal gain
|
|||
|
and/or attention. Many just wanted to find out what was going on. Although
|
|||
|
most major groups in existence today are of a more serious nature, the
|
|||
|
crackpot and those out for personal gain still exist. But even serious
|
|||
|
minded research has faced many of the same problems through the years.
|
|||
|
Although many in the field present themselves as reputable investigators,
|
|||
|
they are anything but. Many show total disregard for even common sense
|
|||
|
investigative procedure; one has to go no further than to scan the number
|
|||
|
of blatant oversights readily evident in many public reports, articles,
|
|||
|
and books put out by these investigators. Oftimes, known facts are ig-
|
|||
|
nored, leads aren't followed up, and viable explanations ignored so that a
|
|||
|
'valid' case can be built. Often, personal theories, reputations, and
|
|||
|
pride override the stated purpose of the investigator. Add to this the
|
|||
|
fact that infighting, feuds, and personal attacks are too often present.
|
|||
|
It is sad but true that the biggest stumbling block to civilian UFO re-
|
|||
|
search has been itself.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
More important than where are we, is where are we going? Where will UFO
|
|||
|
research be ten years from now? Will it have provided a valid case for the
|
|||
|
UFO phenomenon. and be working with science toward a solution? Or will it
|
|||
|
still be fighting an uphill battle? If civilian UFO research is to make
|
|||
|
any progress, then it is going to have to take several strong steps toward
|
|||
|
solidifying itself. It is going to have to get its act together totally. I
|
|||
|
can not make absolute statements as what has to be done, but I can provide
|
|||
|
what I consider to be valid recommendations. First, civilian research has
|
|||
|
to take steps toward unity. I don't mean one organization, but rather, to-
|
|||
|
tal cooperation among existing organizations and individuals; the sharing
|
|||
|
of information being not the least of considerations. Second, a standard-
|
|||
|
ized procedure for investigators, which would include a standard ratings
|
|||
|
system, perhaps similar to the Hynek system used by ParaNet. Third, an ac-
|
|||
|
creditation procedure for investigators to certify their competency, and a
|
|||
|
standard of ethics. Fourth, disassociation of any investigator who fails
|
|||
|
to live up to the code of ethics, fails to achieve accreditation, or fails
|
|||
|
to adhere to standard investigative procedure (beyond a preset limit).
|
|||
|
Fifth, the establishment of an information sharing network. A series of
|
|||
|
computer based bulletin boards would be ideal for this purpose, since they
|
|||
|
would allow access by all but would limit access according to security
|
|||
|
clearance on the BBS.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Above all, even if none of the above is done, UFO investigation has to be-
|
|||
|
come more reliable. Infighting must come to an end, and those seeking only
|
|||
|
to feather their own nest must be ousted from the ranks of reputable in-
|
|||
|
vestigators. The carelessness of the past and present only plays into the
|
|||
|
hands of debunkers who wish to portray the civilian UFO effort as an at-
|
|||
|
tempt to mislead the American public. Civilian UFO investigation has
|
|||
|
gained the level of respect it has due to the efforts of APRO, NICAP,
|
|||
|
MUFON, CAUS, and many reputable individuals who gave, and are giving, many
|
|||
|
hours of work to the purpose of proving the case for the phenomenon. If
|
|||
|
those in UFO investigation today would devote some of their time and ef-
|
|||
|
fort toward rectifying the weaknesses which exist, and making certain that
|
|||
|
the mistakes of the past don't reoccur, then the day of proving the valid-
|
|||
|
ity of the phenomenon will be that much closer.
|
|||
|
------------------------------------------John Aultman is ParaNet's Mississippi correspondent and a member of MUFON. Thisarticle was origin
|
|||
|
ally submitted to the MUFON UFO Journal.
|
|||
|
|