Page Content (OCR)
aspects of the UFO problem. I suspect that they are still involved. Discovering the secret of the UFO propulsion mechanism could be such a military breakthrough that any research project connected with it would enjoy the highest level of classification. But these UFO enthusiasts who are so anxious to expose the government have not reflected that they may be playing into the hands of a more sophisticated coverup of the real situation. Because of their eagerness to believe any indication that the authorities already possess the proof of UFO reality, many enthusiasts provide an ideal conduit for anyone wishing to spread the extraterrestrial gospel. The purpose of such an exercise need not be complex or strategically important. It could be something as mundane as a political diversion, or a test of the reliability of information channels under simulated crisis conditions, or a decoy for paramilitary operations. None of these rumors is likely to lead us any closer to a solution that can only be obtained by careful, intelligent, and perhaps tedious scientific research. The truth is that the UFOs may not be spacecraft at all. And the government may simply be hiding the fact that, in spite of the billions of dollars spent on air defense, it has no more clues to the nature of the phenomenon today than it did in the forties when it began its investigations. A fisherman from Mississippi, who has been subjected to lie-detector tests six times, faces the nation on prime-time TV. Seated between Dr. Carl Sagan and an astronaut, he describes the two robots who came down to take him into the UFO. There was a big machine with an eye, and it examined him. The fisherman has been interrogated by an engineer, an amateur hypnotist who assures us that the experience was real. A UFO "expert," having interviewed the witness in a room full of screaming reporters, has seen the truthfulness of his reactions by the light of their flashbulbs. This is what America is being told — and it happens to be what America wants to hear. This man, we are asked to believe, is adding to the knowledge we have of other worlds. Jumping to conclusions, my ufologist friends are cross-indexing his every sentence, adding final touches to the consistent picture they are painting of extraterrestrial life. In their view there is no room for doubt: this fisherman seated beside a famous scientist, now making small talk with the astronaut (who, by the way, has also seen a UFO), has obviously observed the landing of a spacecraft, and has been abducted by its robot occupants. Or did he? The time has come to challenge this statement. I do not need the results of a lie-detector test to know the witness is describing what he saw. But I don't buy the story that he saw a spacecraft from es a: ars another planet. The study of UFOs is very much like American politics in one respect: there are only two parties you can join. In politics, you can be only a Democrat or a Republican. In ufology, either you are a debunker who doesn't believe in UFOs at all or you agree they are spacecraft from another planet. But are these necessarily the only two possibilities? If UFOs are real, is it obvious that they are es) spacecraft? For many years the best reports of unexplained sightings were of disks that appeared to be metallic, of large size, and capable of fantastic acceleration. They frequently disappeared by going straight up out of the witness's view, suggesting that they were going home to another planet. Their occupants were wearing diving suits and walked awkwardly. The French press of 1954, for instance, was full 9. The Case Against Extraterrestrials Jumping to Conclusions Challenging the Spacecraft Theory