Introduction
It should be emphasized that my colleagues and I quite sincerely considered the fascination with "flying saucers" as a result of the post-war mass psychosis and mentally sympathized with our poor fellow citizens, fooled by such utter nonsense. Therefore, I accepted the invitation of the Air Force to play the role of “astronomical censor” of UFO sightings as a good chance to expose, defeat, dispel this anti-scientific mirage. However, I failed to demonstrate the strength and power of our scientific methodology on the basis of letters and eyewitness accounts … It was only with the establishment of the Blue Book program and the arrival of Captain Ruppelt as its head that I began to feel that I was truly “plunging” into the UFO problem. But the sudden winding down in 1968 of the Blue Book program (established in 1948 by the Air Force to study UFO reports) caused me a backlash.namely, the desire to continue, to advance further UFO research, using the wealth of experience I have accumulated over 20 years of cooperation with the US Air Force (the result was the organization by J. A. Hynek in 1973 of the Center for UFO Research in Evanston - Ed.). I am often asked if I myself have personally observed an unidentified flying object? I have to answer this question in the negative. Thus, my experience with UFOs is secondary, that is, I “saw” these objects through the eyes of other people. I have been asked many times to recommend a “good” book on UFOs, accompanied by remarks like: “Is there anything real about this?” “Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?” or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself.to push UFO research further, using the wealth of experience I have accumulated over 20 years of cooperation with the US Air Force (the result was the organization by J. A. Hynek in 1973 of the Center for UFO Research in Evanston - Ed.). I am often asked if I myself have personally observed an unidentified flying object? I have to answer this question in the negative. Thus, my experience with UFOs is secondary, that is, I “saw” these objects through the eyes of other people. I have been asked many times to recommend a “good” book on UFOs, accompanied by remarks like: “Is there anything real about this?” “Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?” or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself.to push UFO research further, using the wealth of experience I have accumulated over 20 years of cooperation with the US Air Force (the result was the organization by J. A. Hynek in 1973 of the Center for UFO Research in Evanston - Ed.). I am often asked if I myself have personally observed an unidentified flying object? I have to answer this question in the negative. Thus, my experience with UFOs is secondary, that is, I “saw” these objects through the eyes of other people. I have been asked many times to recommend a “good” book on UFOs, accompanied by remarks like: “Is there anything real about this?” “Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?” or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself.accumulated by me over 20 years of cooperation with the US Air Force (the result was the organization by J. A. Hynek in 1973 of the Center for UFO Studies in Evanston - Ed.). I am often asked if I myself have personally observed an unidentified flying object? I have to answer this question in the negative. Thus, my experience with UFOs is secondary, that is, I “saw” these objects through the eyes of other people. I have been asked many times to recommend a “good” book on UFOs, accompanied by remarks like: “Is there anything real about this?” “Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?” or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself.accumulated by me over 20 years of cooperation with the US Air Force (the result was the organization by J. A. Hynek in 1973 of the Center for UFO Studies in Evanston - Ed.). I am often asked if I myself have personally observed an unidentified flying object? I have to answer this question in the negative. Thus, my experience with UFOs is secondary, that is, I “saw” these objects through the eyes of other people. I have been asked many times to recommend a “good” book on UFOs, accompanied by remarks like: “Is there anything real about this?” “Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?” or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself. I am often asked if I myself have personally observed an unidentified flying object? I have to answer this question in the negative. Thus, my experience with UFOs is secondary, that is, I “saw” these objects through the eyes of other people. I have been asked many times to recommend a “good” book on UFOs, accompanied by remarks like: “Is there anything real about this?” “Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?” or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself. I am often asked if I myself have personally observed an unidentified flying object? I have to answer this question in the negative. Thus, my experience with UFOs is secondary, that is, I “saw” these objects through the eyes of other people. I have been asked many times to recommend a “good” book on UFOs, accompanied by remarks like: “Is there anything real about this?” “Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?” or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself.accompanying these addresses with remarks like: "Is there something real in this?", "Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?" or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself.accompanying these addresses with remarks like: "Is there something real in this?", "Is there any truthful evidence of UFOs?" or "Where can I read about this, but not written by a madman?" After much thought, I decided to take up such a book myself.
I had to do this for the benefit of those who are genuinely baffled by the phenomenon, who want to know what the first-hand UFO evidence is, what types of objects are observed and how they are interpreted by eyewitnesses. However, sad as it may seem, I will not be able to tell the readers the main thing that they certainly expect from me: to explain what a UFO is. Just because I don't know. And no one knows (until now the question of the nature of UFOs remains open). But I am determined to show that not all evidence is fictitious or rigged. A “good” book, in my opinion, must be honest and unbiased. It should be based on solid evidence and as well documented as possible. J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986).
The irony of science
One summer evening in 1968 in Victoria, British Columbia, a reception was being held on the occasion of an astronomical symposium. More than one hundred astronomers from different countries gathered in a large restaurant. Suddenly, a man entered the hall and announced that unidentified flying objects had appeared in the sky. A light chuckle passed through the tables, but it quickly died down, and people returned to their conversations. None of the scientists went out to see the mysterious phenomenon of nature with their own eyes! Erwin Schrödinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, said that the main requirement for a scientist should be irrepressible curiosity. However, the scientific community is not curious about the UFO phenomenon. Moreover, the totally aggressive reaction of scientists to any mention of "flying saucers" suggests a certain pathology that deserves the attention of psychiatrists. There are two types of scientists,denying UFOs. The first type includes scoffers who do not even try to deal with any specific case of observing a phenomenon.
The second type includes scientists who, after checking, recognize the reality of UFOs, but only as a purely psychological phenomenon. The position of the second group of scientists still deserves attention, since they have materials for discussion. The views of the first group, on the contrary, do not stimulate discussions, because, in their opinion, since there is no phenomenon, then there is no subject of discussion itself. If the problem is really “nonsense,” why is it provoking such an aggressive reaction from authoritative and respectable scientists? Is it because this realizes a subconscious response to a challenge that they are not ready to accept? The famous Canadian science historian Thomas Gauge wrote: “One of the most interesting aspects of the UFO phenomenon to me is that it serves as a kind of index of the vitality of science. I would consider only that science as realwhich perceives new facts and accepts their new explanations, including those that contradict the laws of nature”. Further T. Gauge emphasized that any existing system of ideas sooner or later begins to resist new facts that go beyond its framework. For example, most scientists have long disagreed with the currently recognized theories about the origin of meteorites, about the mechanism of nuclear transformations, about the nature of blood circulation in the human body, about the nature of the northern lights, etc. “Thus, - continued T. Gauge, - if the scientific community easily perceives new facts, it means that they are not new in the true sense of the word.” The following example illustrates this well. Once upon a time physicists were ready to admit that meteorites do not fall from the sky, but are "carved" out of the rocks by lightning. This explanation easily fit into the established picture of the world. People could not imagine any other reason. “From this it becomes clear,” concluded T. Gauge, “that if UFOs are not recognized as reality or are interpreted as the delusions of eyewitnesses, then modern science cannot be considered real!” It is likely that many experts would use their abilities to research UFOs if they had the proper information. Unfortunately, they have to draw information about UFOs from newspapers, tabloid magazines and occult publications. The bibliography of various literature, one way or another related to UFOs, occupies a volume of 400 pages! But it is not only specialists who are misinformed about this problem. The whole society has distorted concepts about UFOs. These include the following "truths": "Only fanatics report UFO sightings."In reality, the most sensible and clear messages come from eyewitnesses who are not at all aware of the problem, but quite sincerely puzzled by what they saw. And UFO fanatics or occultists and mystics rarely send their descriptions. In addition, these incoherent texts are easily identified and discarded. "UFOs are never reported by real scientists." This statement is also wrong. Moreover, it is the scientists who own the most detailed, accurate and qualified descriptions of what they saw. Another thing is that their names do not appear in the media, because they avoid publicity and prefer to remain anonymous eyewitnesses. “UFO reports come from unreliable ones. ignorant and generally dubious people. " Some of the descriptions really belong to unreliable eyewitnesses, prone to exaggeration. Usually these people mistake famous objects for UFOs,but their messages are easily identified and excluded from further consideration. Sometimes insufficiently educated people also write. But this does not mean at all that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, teenage witness testimony is most highly rated by road traffic investigators. The latter, of course, are not always intellectuals, but they speak and write without any prejudice. On the other hand, the most complete dumb and fools rarely overcome their laziness to write something sensible. There are very few reports from the mentally handicapped. Psychiatrist Berthold Schwartz examined 3400 patients and did not find a single UFO sighting among them! His colleagues received the same results and noted the almost complete lack of interest in these phenomena in patients."UFOs are ships of" little green men "and, in general, aliens from outer space." As I said, now no one knows what UFOs are. However, it is unacceptable to deny the phenomenon itself due to the extravagance of the cosmic hypothesis of its origin, because by doing so we will lose the opportunity to consider other hypotheses. We can define a UFO as a perception described by eyewitnesses in the sky or over the ground of an object or a light spot, the appearance of which, the trajectory, the general dynamics of movement and the nature of the glow defy the usual logical explanation. It is especially important that these objects or light spots remain incomprehensible even for specially trained experts conducting professional expertise at the observation site. With this in mind, I want to emphasizethat my own long-term research has taught me to categorically weed out the messages of people "with a crack in the bowler hat", religious fanatics and mystics. Practice has shown that a significant number of evidence is easily identified by experts with the observation of ordinary natural objects or samples of purely terrestrial technology. The remaining messages, which do not lend themselves to such an identification, represent the very sediment that science coveted. It includes the following categories of evidence: having a global character, that is, coming from different parts of the globe; presented by competent, responsible, mentally normal eyewitnesses, who are completely trustworthy; containing indications of details that, in the aggregate, are not identified with anything known; containing elements,not amenable to verbal description and not related, therefore, to known physical or mental processes or phenomena. Chapter II. Eyewitness reactions
One of the many letters from Americans who saw something unusual in the sky said: “What I experienced on the morning of June 8, 1966, will never fade into my memory. Terror gripped me, and I walked like a lost one for weeks. But in the war I had no courage. We also greeted the first jet fighters of the Germans in cold blood. Now the representatives of the “Blue Book” say that I saw the same thing”(!). Thousands of UFO eyewitnesses who passed before me over the years left the impression that they, like the author of the letter quoted above, were talking about completely real things. The appearance of a UFO seemed to them as tangible as, for example, a traffic accident on the street or an elephant performance in a circus. But there is still one significant difference: if eyewitnesses talk about elephants or street accidents easily and freely,then, when describing UFOs, they experience great difficulty, as if they clearly lack words. Nearly all UFO accounts contain the phrase, "I've never seen anything like it in my life." But on the other hand, eyewitnesses would clearly like what they saw was well understood. The stories usually begin like this: “I knew right away that there was an accident,” as if police cars were flashing lights. But the lights were too high, and then I thought it was a plane crashing. But when we got closer, it became clear that this was not an airplane and in general it was not known what”. As you can see, as the story progresses, there is a certain escalation of hypotheses about what happened. In most cases, what he sees has a shock effect on the eyewitness: “I have never seen anything like it and I am convinced that no plane could fly at such a speed” (March 9, 1967, 21.10, Onawa,Iowa, three eyewitnesses). “The object looked like an airplane, but it stood motionless. And no sounds were heard. We watched him for about five minutes, after which he jumped off the spot and instantly disappeared from view”(January 11, 1966, 7:40 pm, Meyerstone, Pennsylvania, four eyewitnesses). “The policeman told me that a helicopter must have hidden behind the clouds, from which this thing was lowered on a cable. It is impossible to imagine a more stupid explanation of what he saw”(May 30, 1969, Kenora, Canada, one eyewitness). These seemingly fantastic messages are by no means exceptional. Hundreds and thousands of similar cases, collected by scientists - ufologists, could fill this book. Moreover, most of them are confirmed by several witnesses. More than once, having read the next message, I was amazed that the respectable,quite serious people insist on completely absurd events. And after all, they cannot but understand that after their stories they become targets for the most stinging ridicule. And nevertheless, what happened to them is often indirectly confirmed, for example, by the behavior of such quite impartial “witnesses” such as animals: “One evening our dog suddenly burst into an unusual barking in the yard.
Promotional video:
Then the horses began to rave in the paddock. Wanting to find out what scared the animals so much, I ran out into the street and immediately saw an incomprehensible object at an altitude of 120-150 meters above the ground. A neighbor who came to my call screamed out of fear … I thought that we saw some kind of secret aircraft and decided to keep quiet until they told about it in the newspapers”. Sometimes strange messages were accompanied by ingenuous and quite sincere comments. A letter from four schoolchildren from Woodworthy Forest about the February 15, 1967 event bore the note: "This is all true 1 true, for our pupils could not cast a shadow on their teachers." The Richardson, Texas Boy Scouts reported: "All three of us - Mike, Greig and I, we give you our word of honor that this was not a hoax or an optical illusion." It is impossible to neglect the following lines: “I swear that this is not a fake photograph,because I don't know how they are being kissed”(referring to photographs of UFOs taken on December 26, 1967 in New Jersey). And, finally, it is difficult to relate without sympathy to the child's letter about the observation of a cigar-shaped object on January 19, 1967: "Although I am still small, I beg you, believe me!" Very often there are messages from very responsible persons. For example, a trans-Australian airline pilot who flew 11,500 hours wrote to us about the observation on May 24, 1965: “I have always laughed at such things. But that day I saw a UFO myself. We've all seen. There is no doubt that the unidentified object was mind-controlled. And he certainly wasn't an airplane. " Another pilot, who flew 50 combat missions during the Second World War and was awarded many orders, was also puzzled. Reporting the June 8, 1966 sighting in Kansas, Ohio, he stated:“We didn't hear any sound. The object was the size of a commercial airliner and had no markings. I experienced a sense of mortal danger. The feeling of depression did not leave me sweat all day. " Often, after hearing an expressive and too detailed story about a UFO sighting, I wondered: "Why are they telling me all this?" But then I realized that the eyewitnesses thereby want to help me give them an exhaustive explanation of what they saw. Only in this case can they get rid of the fear of the unknown pressing on them. Of course, these people get very upset when I say that I don't know much more about UFOs than they do. And at the same time, similar stories come from all over the world … Of course, most of the messages of this kind are provoked by clouds of an extraordinary kind, meteors,planets and stars or technical samples of man-made origin - airplanes, balloons, meteorological balloons, artificial earth satellites. They should be called identified flying objects. A relatively small proportion of UFO reports remain unexplained due to lack of information. However, in any set of reports there is a tangible balance of 5-10%, which baffles not only direct observers, but also competent investigators. It is these cases that are true facts of UFO sightings, they may differ in the impressions of eyewitnesses, but they have a number of similar features, in particular, with respect to the shape of the UFO, maneuverability, the nature of appearance and disappearance, the accompanying sound and the color of the object. I proposed to divide all incoming messages into two large groups:related to UFO sightings at great distances (hundreds of kilometers and kilometers) and at close distances, otherwise they are called "close contacts" (no further than two hundred meters). In turn, these two large groups of observations can be divided into a number of subgroups for the convenience of processing.
UFO sightings at great distances
Night light. Clearly visible, well-defined lights of unknown nature, usually red, orange, or white. This group includes the lion's share of UFO sightings at large distances. Daytime disks. These are objects observed in the daytime, as a rule, oval or disc-shaped, in appearance metallic. They are fixed high in the sky, close to the ground and are often seen in a state of motionless hovering. Daytime discs can pick up tremendous speed instantly. Radar “bursts” on radar screens, especially when they coincide with visual tracking of UFOs, are considered very valuable evidence of the reality of the observed objects.
UFO sightings at close distances ("close contacts")
Contacts of the first kind. UFOs are observed in the air and do not appear to interact with the environment, animals or eyewitnesses. Contacts of the second kind. In these cases, the interaction of the UFO with the environment is recorded in the form of interference in the operation of electronic devices, turning off the ignition systems of cars, the appearance of prints on the ground or traces of scorching by fire. Contacts of the third kind. In this subgroup of messages there are hypothetical inhabitants of UFOs - more or less humanoid creatures, now called humanoids, enlonauts or biorobots. They usually do not come into direct contact or negotiate with eyewitnesses, but in recent years there has been an inexplicable increase in reports of enlonauts temporarily arresting gape of witnesses for the purpose of “medical” examinations. In a number of cases of close contact, some strange consequences remain:trampled, compressed and dehydrated vegetation, broken tree branches and footprints on the ground. Sometimes soil samples taken from UFO sightings close to the ground showed traces of exposure to high temperatures and some other changes that were not noted in the control samples. An important addition to the visual experience can be photographs of radar screens with unexplained "bursts". Numerous photographs of UFOs, although their authenticity is easily established by modern methods of examination, most often show something indistinct, voluminous at a great distance and out of focus. This is understandable, because the appearance of a UFO occurs unexpectedly.found traces of exposure to high temperatures and some other changes that were not noted in the control samples. An important addition to the visual experience can be photographs of radar screens with unexplained "bursts". Numerous photographs of UFOs, although their authenticity is easily established by modern methods of examination, most often show something indistinct, voluminous at a great distance and out of focus. This is understandable, because the appearance of a UFO occurs unexpectedly.found traces of exposure to high temperatures and some other changes that were not noted in the control samples. An important addition to the visual experience can be photographs of radar screens with unexplained "bursts". Numerous photographs of UFOs, although their authenticity is easily established by modern methods of examination, most often show something indistinct, voluminous at a great distance and out of focus. This is understandable, because the appearance of a UFO occurs unexpectedly.voluminously at a great distance and out of focus. This is understandable, because the appearance of a UFO occurs unexpectedly.voluminously at a great distance and out of focus. This is understandable, because the appearance of a UFO occurs unexpectedly.
When analyzing a photograph, you need to have a negative, know its author and all the circumstances of the shooting. At present, there is a timid, but steady appeal to the problem of UFOs by representatives of traditional science and even scientific journals (for example, "Applied Optics"). When a UFO appears, it is necessary to immediately attract the attention of other witnesses and, if possible, photograph the object. Then you should write down what the UFO looks like, describe the nature of its movement, the time and duration of being in the field of view, as well as the direction of flight.
UFOs in messages
Who exactly witnesses a UFO? Is this "lucky" average citizen of the country or is it the lot of people with special qualities? In trying to answer these questions, we immediately ran into obstacles. First of all, we could only take into account those eyewitnesses who deigned to report their observation. There is no doubt that in fact there are incomparably more witnesses to the appearance of UFOs. Therefore, we could not say anything about the qualitative composition of all the “lucky ones.” Only the authors of the letters could be subjected to the appropriate analysis - let us call them “UFO reporters.” Who are these people who report UFOs despite the obvious prospect of ridicule? to be charlatans, pranksters, mentally ill people, but also quite serious citizens who consider it their duty to convey to scientists the impression of an unusual observation. It is these “UFO reporters” that are of primary value to science. Here is a typical message from such an eyewitness: “I work here at the post office and hesitated for a long time before writing about it. But on serious reflection, I realized that I would be an unworthy citizen of America if I could hide my concern about what the brightly glowing object was and where it came from. In my practice, true “UFO reporters” were not much different from the rest of the people in the area. However, they usually preferred to keep quiet about what they saw in the sky. And only after being convinced of the seriousness and sincerity of the investigator, they began to open up. “I never expected to see such a thing,” one of the eyewitnesses wrote to me, “and told about it only to two people - a close friend and my pastor. But in the future, whatever I see in the sky, I will keep my mouth shut like a fish. For when we called the local police to see if anyone else had reported UFOs, the policeman laughed so long and loudly into the phone that he must have fallen off his chair. The newspapers also made fun of this, so I feel like a complete idiot now. " Such confessions are found all the time in letters from UFO eyewitnesses. And if, in an atmosphere of such acute rejection, a person still insists on his own, then his information is genuine and deserves serious attention. The persistence of eyewitnesses also testifies to their gnawing curiosity about the experience, which is usually so great that it is stronger than the fear of ridicule. Why is the identity of the UFO reporting person so important to us? The fact is that if in other fields of science the information required for research mainly comes from a variety of instruments and sensors,then in ufology such a source is only a "UFO reporter". In this non-trivial field of science, the human observer is the only tool. Traditional science deals with devices and instruments that require systematic adjustment and debugging. No astronomer will use an uncalibrated spectrograph. However, if this device worked perfectly all the time, was periodically calibrated and had no accidental mechanical damage, then the astronomer can fully rely on its readings. The situation with "UFO reporters" is very similar. If they have long established themselves as honest and reliable people and have good mental health, then why not trust them, if, moreover, their testimony is confirmed by other UFO eyewitnesses? Although there are many special tests,confirming or refuting the veracity of the testimony of the respondents, they did not reach UFOlogy. And yet, UFO eyewitnesses are eager to pass such tests, which in itself testifies to their sincerity. Due to the lack of testing methods for "UFO reporters" we have to be content with indirect methods: we study the eyewitness's lifestyle, family circumstances, professional competence and qualifications, integrity, etc. All this is done to resolve the main question - did what the "UFO reporter" really tell happened in reality? True, Cape may just as well ask: if the speedometer reads 80 mph, is the car really going at the same speed? Of course, a person cannot be compared to a speedometer. Although, like the device, the eyewitness may malfunction. There are many stories knownwhen an exemplary citizen in all respects suddenly breaks down and commits a heinous crime. However, it is impossible to imagine that several law-abiding citizens would simultaneously break down and commit the same crime. Likewise, the “crime” of a group of respectable citizens in the form of a coordinated UFO report is unthinkable. But, on the other hand, although we do not focus our attention on single “UFO reporters”, we still see no reason not to trust them at all. One might ask, “Why should we believe what a few reputable“UFO reporters”tell us?” But with the same pathos, one can put the question differently: “Why should we not believe them?”. In general, the grounds for trust and distrust, as can be seen from the above reasoning, are approximately the same. Indeed, how to relate, say,to the next message: “About twenty years ago, I first saw a UFO. There were two of us in the car and we were driving on Highway 285 over Kenosha Pass in Colorado. I don't know what we saw at 11.30 am for two minutes, but what we saw was absolutely real.
Before throwing this letter into the trash can, please take into account that I am a mathematics teacher, I am 51 years old and I have never suffered from neuroses, hallucinations or mental illness. And I never sought fame. On the contrary, I have heard all too well about UFO eyewitnesses who are considered crazy. " It is interesting to note, speaking of the reliability of UFO reports, that in cases where "artificial" UFOs are launched to check the public reaction (meaning balloons, flares dropped from aircraft, etc.), the number of reports is always significantly less than expected! But what's even more interesting is that most people don't react to it. On rare occasions, simulations provide a number of “true” reports of alleged UFO sightings. But they drop out easilybecause they are characterized by internal inconsistency and do not coincide with the testimony of other eyewitnesses. It is extremely remarkable that “pseudo UFO reporters” never mention in their reports the facts of turning off the ignition systems of cars, physical traces on the surface of the earth from “landings” and even more so - of humanoids. Comparing reports from different observers usually reveals a clear picture of what actually happened - whether it was a balloon launch or some kind of scientific experiment. This is facilitated by the, as a rule, accurate recording of the duration of the phenomenon, the direction of movement of the luminous object, its speed, color, etc. Here, of course, one can come across obvious exaggerations, but they are unlikely to be greater than when collecting testimony, for example,about a fire or some traffic accident. Descriptions of these cases can vary greatly in detail, but the investigator will never have doubts that this is a fire, and not a bank robbery. And he will never be able to get the testimony of eyewitnesses who observed the balloon, that they saw a UFO with "windows", "antennas" and "pilots." So the investigator can immediately determine the true cause of the message. To tell the truth, there are times when even a single witness with a low trust index can present a very impressive message, clearly due to a natural phenomenon. Such documents should serve as a warning against reports of single eyewitnesses. Apparently, after all, one person cannot be attentive enough, even if he has a high trust index. Generally,Considering all of the above, we note that a priori there is no reason why one should reject any UFO report from the start. The secret behind the seven seals of the whole problem is the fact that absolutely incredible testimonies are expressed by absolutely honest people, and often several at once. Of course, what the “UFO reporters” told and asserted as reality is very difficult to perceive, so difficult that representatives of official science, due to their classical scientific training and traditional experience, are inclined to completely reject such evidence. However, such a position cannot automatically eliminate the phenomenon. Responsible people report it, although it poses a daring challenge to science. And until we get flawless radar data and photographs, we must listen to eyewitnesses,on which the science of ufology depends. There are too many of these people in all corners of the earth to be easily dismissed … Let us begin our analysis of the reports from the testimony given to me by Dr. D. Lazer from the laboratory of Harvard College with the note: members of his family”. The observation was made on December 24, 1967 at 8.30 pm in Belmont, Massachusetts, for 15-20 minutes with the participation of 8 people. “It was cold, windy weather when a silently moving fire, which surprised me greatly, appeared. I think a minute passed and a second fire followed, and then a third. I ran for the binoculars and when I returned, I saw that the first two lights were hanging motionless at an angle of 15-20 degrees above the horizon, next to each other. The third continued to move. And then, with a pause of half a minute, from nowhere, additional lights began to appear - I think there were 6 or 7. Some of them stopped, others went beyond the horizon. Finally, from two or three lights, small lights began to separate, falling, flickering, straight down. The most striking was the color of the lights, unlike anything else - bright yellow, orange. " In 1968 I decided to write a letter to this eyewitness. In response, he said something curious: “I am attaching to this answer of mine a comment by Donald Menzel, the Harvard astronomer, who reviewed my description of the mysterious lights. I must admit that I no longer want to deal with him, because he not only laughed at the whole UFO problem, but did not seem to read my report. His “explanation” speaks for itself:"Bright stars combined with aircraft landing lights and satellite flyby." The Blue Book reacted in the same way to this Message. Inquiries to military intelligence regarding possible secret tests remained unanswered. I have expanded on this episode only because it contains the typical reaction of the faithful astronomer and inert staff of the Blue Book. In addition, here once again the opinion is refuted that people who have not taken place intellectually report about UFOs. Let's pay attention to the message dated May 14, 1970. The observation was conducted by two eyewitnesses at 21.45 in Bangor, Maine, for 2-3 minutes: “At that moment the Big Dipper was almost at its zenith. Suddenly I noticedthat two stars from this constellation began to rotate around a certain center counterclockwise at a speed of 30 revolutions per minute. The distance between them was about one and a half times the diameter of the moon. Suddenly they stopped and then flew in different directions. " This report was sent for examination to the National Center for Atmospheric Research at the University of Colorado and the Harvard College Observatory. There were no replies from these venerable institutions. Why? Perhaps due to the negative attitude towards UFOs by University of Colorado professor Edward Condon. In this regard, it is interesting to get acquainted with the story of the police officers who observed the "night lights" before the start of the Condon commission. The observation by four eyewitnesses took place on September 22, 1966, for more than an hour at 3.00 am in Deadwood, South Dakota. The police saw a large, round, bright white object 50 degrees above the horizon. It hung motionless for a quarter of an hour, but when the police pointed their searchlight at it, the ball immediately darkened. After a very short time, a small fire flew up to it from the northwest, stopping nearby. Then this was repeated from the southeast. After that, the mysterious object began to move along a rectangular trajectory, throwing sheaves of light on the ground. After 30 minutes of maneuvering, small lights flew away from the object in the directions from which they appeared, and after 5 seconds they disappeared from view. Everything happened absolutely silently. Unfortunately, the investigators of this incident were not puzzled by the main question: how could this incredible fantasy be born in the heads of law enforcement officers? Have they been in a somnambulistic state for more than an hour,conducting radio communications with “somnambulists” from police stations in neighboring cities? Or did they really see what they saw? If the version of "somnambulism" is passed, then it is necessary to revise the system of selection of police personnel. For how can such people be trusted with the safety of our citizens? Is this “painful” state typical of our military pilots? The Blue Book archive contains many reports from them. The category we are considering includes, in particular, an observation on August 18, 1964 at 0.35 over the Atlantic, 200 miles east of Dover, Delaware, with the participation of 4 eyewitnesses for 2 minutes: “A reddish-white bright spot appeared ahead and rushed straight at us. When the commander maneuvered to avoid collision, the object jerked in the other direction. The report was signed by a major, a lieutenant and two private crew members. "In the message of the pilot of Eastern Airlines on February 28, 1968, the dialogue that took place is characteristic: "I grabbed the microphone and shouted:" Who is sticking out there right on the course? " Mission control replied that the plane they had just spoken to was 15 miles east of us. "But he's right in front of us!" I repeated. But they didn’t see any object from the tower”. Military pilots are cautious in their messages, because they are afraid of punishment prescribed by special instructions for being too frank about UFOs. When this book was almost finished, I turned to the editor of the journal Physics Today with a request to send me letters with descriptions of UFOs. One of them tells about an event 11 years ago. Why? The author, now a professional astronomer, has been silent for so long for fear of being ridiculed. The observation took place in the summer of 1960 at 2.00 nights in Walkerton, Ontario (Canada), with the participation of 5 people, for an hour. Eyewitnesses raced in a car, pursuing an unknown luminous object, but could not overtake it. At some point, they approached 100 meters. He hovered over a tall tree that stood alone in a cultivated field. With a tree height of 35-40 meters, the object had a diameter of about one meter. It was a spheroid (ball), shone brightly against the background of a dark sky and changed its color over the entire spectrum range with a period of about two seconds. The impression was that the ball was “examining” the tree! - circled around it, stopped at some branches, hovered over the crown, etc. It was certainly too small to contain a humanoid "pilot". The movement, including the departure at supersonic speed in a southerly direction, was completely silent. The main impression of the observers is the “intelligent” behavior of the object. So, the typical reports of the observation of "night lights" allow you to make a kind of portrait of this category of UFOs. This refers primarily to a bright source of light of an undetermined size without clear outlines. The color may be different, but yellow-orange (orange) clearly predominates, although the manifestation of all components of the spectrum is not excluded. The trajectory is in no way suitable for air cylinders, aircraft or natural objects, and, moreover, leaves the impression of "reasonable". It is as if the light is not “attached” to a solid body (?). Despite the fact that the trajectories and, in general, the entire dynamics of “night lights” do not lend themselves to normal physical explanations, there are still no sufficient grounds to speak of their violation of known physical laws. The episodes covered in this chapterrepresent many hundreds of cases of observations of "night lights", differing, of course, from each other in detail. Yet these selected messages give us a typical portrait of a nocturnal phenomenon. In none of these examples do we find “obvious natural anomalies”. And yet we remain in doubt …
Day Discs
“A huge“plane”, but without wings, approached so much that I could see it in detail. It turned out to be a clockwise rotating disc with a diameter of 15-16 meters visible from the side”(observation February 4, 1966, Houston, Texas, Blue Book archive). This typical message is for daytime, that is, the observed object falls into the “daytime disks” category. For the most part, eyewitnesses describe them as oval or disc-shaped bodies. "Daytime disks", of course, are seen less frequently than "night lights", because during the daytime people are too preoccupied to look at the sky for a long time. In addition, the luminous object is seen much better at night than during the day. It is possible that for some reason a nocturnal “lifestyle” is preferable for UFOs. And even under this condition, many hundreds of letters from reliable eyewitnesses with descriptions of daytime UFO sightings have accumulated in the UFO archives. In my personal archive, there are not much fewer “good” messages during the day than there are at night. Perhaps this is due to the extremely high requirements for eyewitnesses of "night lights", which I present to include them in my catalog. I prepared a representative sample of "daytime disks" of about a dozen observations with the participation of 58 eyewitnesses. On average, there are about 4 people for each observation. It would be possible to include in this sample especially spectacular cases with single eyewitnesses, but despite the rather high rating of reliability and trust of some of them, I still did not take them into account. The reaction of people who saw "daytime discs" is characteristic. This is evidenced by the following examples, in which, however,while the descriptions of the UFO proper are omitted: “My friend, who was driving, asked:“Do you see what I see?” I nodded my head.
A truck with piglets stopped nearby. There were two men in the cockpit. One of them asked what problems we have. We pointed to the object and asked him what he thinks about it. The man replied: "Yes, this is probably a" flying saucer "!" I couldn’t calm down all day and in the evening I called the local airport. Of course, no one saw anything there”(observation January 15, 1968, 7.25 am, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, observation duration 10 minutes). “I now understand that I needed to take more pictures, but I really wanted to see the UFO directly with my eyes, and not through the viewfinder” (October 21, 1967, 6.16 a.m., Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas, 3 eyewitnesses, observation time 30 sec.). “Almost five years devoted to the profession of a pilot taught me to look carefully at the sky. What I noticed in him was not an illusion or lightning. When I saw this, various explanations came into my head, but I immediately rejected them”(March 24, 1967, 8.45 am, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 2 eyewitnesses). “During World War II, I was a military pilot. Throughout the war, I have never seen anything unusual in the sky. But now that I am 43 years old, I have witnessed an incredible phenomenon that transcends my imagination and overwhelms my idea of common sense”(April 11, 1964, 6.30 am, Homer, NY, 3 eyewitnesses, 45 minutes). Daytime "UFO reporters" show the same reaction of amazement and bewilderment as observers of "night lights". It would seem that excellent visibility during the day makes it possible to identify what he saw, especially since the duration of the observation of the phenomenon is sometimes quite long. But this is not what happens,although eyewitnesses wholeheartedly strive to include the observed in the circle of natural explanations. Even professional observers are often unable to verbalize their unprecedented impressions … Let's return to the case on January 15, 1968 in Kalgary (Alberta, Canada), when UFOs were observed by four people, including two from a truck. The unknown object was described with the words: “The color is greenish-blue, similar to fluorescence. Road signs are painted in this color. The UFO followed the truck, skirting the unevenness of the hilly terrain.” The confusion of observers is obvious. Many times I have met UFO eyewitnesses who said: “I cannot describe the glow. I've never seen anything like this anywhere. " They often pointed to the uniformity of the glow of the object without point lights: “The contours were sharp, but no lights,similar to the landing lights of an airplane or helicopter were not observed. " The lack of descriptive terminology is certainly inherent in lay observers. But surprising as it may seem, well-prepared people also manifest such a “disease”. For example, in the aforementioned report from Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas, highly trained airport controllers and a long-time pilot compared the flying objects to "two oval objects that resembled wooden plates." But the visibility was excellent that morning. This message came to the Blue Book with a cover letter: "Since authoritative people write about a strange fact, we have to admit that they really saw an unusual object, the origin of which could not be clarified." As far as I know, Blue Book did not respond to this message. Surveys of many “UFO reporters” have convinced me that the vagueness of their descriptions stems from a high degree of strange observation and that eyewitnesses simply do not have enough vocabulary for this, although they make great efforts. Rural machine operators can compare UFOs to machines they know, such as a tractor. Similar difficulties with analogies annoy highly qualified eyewitnesses - patrol officers, aviators, scientists, engineers. After all that has been said, the most pragmatic and unsophisticated is the resume of a truck driver with pigs; "Yes, this is probably a" flying saucer! " As I was convinced, reporters find it difficult to describe the sounds accompanying the passage of a UFO. They almost always say, "It just looks like this and that." True, "daytime discs", as a rule, fly by without sound. In the above observation in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, it was noted: "There were no sounds, so we heard the plane take off at Calgary airport." As for the trajectory and kinematics of the "daytime disks", then, according to the "reporters", they move as clearly controlled bodies. However, they often decrease along the trajectory of the “falling leaf”. Obviously, these discs have the universal property of taking off smoothly - often with fantastic accelerations, but without any noise. In part, the indicator of the degree of strange observation is determined precisely by the nature of the trajectory, which is not characteristic of natural celestial bodies or objects of terrestrial origin. Again, in the case of the observation in Calgary, the “day disk”, when moving, seemed to outline the vertical profile of the terrain as it flew. It is known from other messagesthat over small bodies of water, objects often hover motionless. The picture of observations of “daytime disks” is supplemented by other details: “In short, I saw a small silvery white disk of unknown diameter and unknown to me. span, but it definitely existed physically. At first the disk stood for ten minutes, and then flew under the clouds - no sounds were heard. All this did not at all resemble an airplane flight, and the movement against the clouds precluded identification with an air balloon (March 24, 1967, 8.45 am, Los Alamos, New Mexico). Descriptions of "daytime disks" are generally similar to each other: oval (or disc-shaped) white or silvery objects, solid in appearance. Sometimes they have a dark rim around them. “The disc looked like a silver hamburger,” said the professional sculptor, unfortunatelysingle observer. This “hamburger” described a huge square in the sky and “gave a snatch like a frightened hare”. In another, also a single observation, a "reporter" who is a mechanic by trade compared the UFO to "a sandwich full of meat sticking out of a layer of butter." There are quite a few photographs of “daytime disks”. And although the conditions for photographing were not always precisely established, and often the pictures were exposed as outright forgeries, there are still genuine photographs! I am personally convinced of this by my own experience of examination. I believe that pictures of "daytime disks" can be taken seriously if the following conditions are met: 1) the reliability of the photographer who personally saw the UFO at the time of the shooting has been confirmed; 2) the originals of the negatives of the photographs taken are provided; 3) provided the camera that took the picture;4) a photographer's oath was obtained that the photographs were authentic and that the image belonged to a UFO, and not to something else. The latter condition is not necessary if the submitted photographic material is accompanied by several independent images taken preferably from different points.