- In over 30 years of UFO investigation I have not studied
a single sighting for which I could not find a prosaic explanation. - paraphrase
of a statement by Philip J. Klass
- Could some UFOs actually be manifestations of Other Intelligences
(OIs)or Non-Human Intelligences (NHIs) such as extraterrestrials (ETs),
visiting the earth and interacting with human beings? Or all reports of
such sightings simply mistakes, hoaxes or dreams of the hopeful believers?
It all comes down to explanation. If there were no sightings which are
richly detailed, credible and yet unexplainable the UFO subject would be
based totally on theoretical expectations, as is the so-called Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). SETI is based on the theory that
we could detect electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves or light,
that is radiated toward us, intentionally or unintentionally, by extraterrestrial
- If all sightings had reasonable explanations, then theoretical
speculations about ET intelligences visiting the earth might be interesting
but of little practical consequence. Ufology, if there were such a thing
in the absence of unexplainable sightings, would consist of studying witnesses
who, evidently, failed to identify explainable (identifiable) phenomena
or who simply made up "tall stories" about ET visition. "Ufological
science", if it existed under these circumstances, would consist of
psychology, psychiatry and perhaps sociology.
- There are skeptics who believe that this is exactly the
what ufology should consist of.
- Noted UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass has provided perhaps
the most straightforward statement of the skeptic's position on UFO sightings
in his book "UFOS, THE PUBLIC DECEIVED" (Prometheus Books, Buffalo,
NY, 1983, pg. 297) wherein he writes that the "Occam's Razor"
alternative to unexplained UFO sightings, is this: "...roughly 98%
of sightings are simply misidentifications of prosaic, if sometimes unfamiliar,
objects by honest persons..(and) ... the balance, roughly 2%, are self-delusions
or hoaxes by persons who like to spin tall tales and become instant celebrities."
In other words, UFO reports are the results of misidentifications, delusions
and hoaxes, period! There is not one case for which there is no "prosaic
explanation." As evidence of this Mr. Klass has offered prosaic explanations
for a number of famous sightings. Of course, Mr. Klass has not attempted
to explain each of the hundreds of thousands of sighting reports which
have been made over the last half century. However, he has proposed explanations
for a representative sample of reports which are classified as "good"
by most ufologists and, on this basis, he has generalized his statement
to apply to the bulk of the UFO sighting reports.
- Mr. Klass' statement is that he has provided the "prosaic"
explanations for all the reports he has studied. A reader of Mr. Klass'
analysis would likely assume that each prosaic explanation is, in fact,
the *actual* explanation for a particular sighting. At least, that is what
the typically logical but uneducated (in the deep lore of ufology)and trusting
reader would infer from Klass' statement. It is also what the generally
skeptical scientific community and the newsmedia would infer from Klass'
statement. Unfortunately, his statement is wrong.
- Klass would have the reader believe that he has correctly
explained all the sightings he has investigated. If he were correct then
his argument about misidentifications, hoaxes and delusions making up 100%
of UFO sightings would be unassailable, at least for the sightings which
he has investigated. (One can always imagine that some sighting(s) not
investigated by Klass is (are) unexplainable, but that's not the point
of this discussion.) However, in some cases he has offered prosaic explanations
which are demonstrably wrong. In other cases he has proposed explanations
which may not be provably wrong but which are are, at the very least, unconvincing.
(Note that in the absence of confirmatory information it may not be possible
to decide whether an explanation is correct, but it is possible to decide
whether or not an explanation is convincing.) Hence Klass' claim is literally
correct: he has offered prosaic explanations for the sightings he has investigated.
But the logical inference that these are the correct explanations is wrong:
there are sightings which he has investigated but has not explained. From
the scientific point of view it is not sufficient to propose explanations
that are incorrect.
- To say that at least some of Klass' prosaic explanations,
even explanations for well publicized sightings, are wrong is a strong
statement. However, an even stronger statement can be made: Klass' analysis
has demonstrated that at least some of the cases he has investigated have
*no prosaic explanations.* Why is this? Because Klass, having analyzed
these cases carefully, has proposed the only potential explanations that
remain after all other explanations have been rejected. That is, there
are no other potential prosaic explanations that make any sense. Hence
when his proposed explanations are proven wrong there are no remaining
candidate explanations and the sighting becomes that of a TRue UFO (TRUFO),
which might be evidence of OI/NHI/ET.
- As an example of a case for which Klass' proposed prosaic
explanation is wrong, or, at best, unconvincing, consider the sighting
by police officer Val Johnson of Warren, Minnesota. Shortly after 1:30
AM, August 27, 1980, as he was cruising the countryside in his police car
in an area of low population, he noticed a bright light that he could see
through the trees of a small wooded area. Thinking it might be a landed
airplane carrying illegal drugs from Canada he accelerated along a road
toward the area of the light. Suddenly this light moved rapidly toward
his car. He heard a noise of breaking glass and lost consciousness. When
he regained consciousness he was leaning forward with his head against
the top of the steering wheel. There was a red mark on his forehead which
suggests that he might have bumped his head on the wheel hard enough to
render him unconscious (he said he was not wearing his seatbelt at the
time). After regaining consciousness he called the police station. It was
2:19 AM. He had been unconscious for about 40 minutes. He reported that
something had "attacked" his car.
- When another officer arrived on the scene a few minutes
after Johnson's report he found Johnson's car nearly 90 degrees to the
road (blocking the road) and skid marks nearly 100 ft long. Johnson was
found in a distraught condition, in a state of shock. He said he recalled
seeing the bright light rushing toward his police car and he recalled hearing
breaking glass. The next thing he recalled was realizing he was sitting
with his head on the steering wheel. He did not recall skidding to a stop.
He complained about pain in his eyes and was taken to a doctor who could
find no eye damage. He did not complain of a headache.
- Of particular importance is physical evidence to the
police car. One of the two glass headlight covers on the driver's side
had been broken, there was a large crack in the windshield on the driver's
side, a plastic cover on the light bar on top of the car had a hole in
it, there was a dent in the top of the hood, and two of the three spring-mounted
antennas were bent 60 or more degrees, with the bend occurring over a short
distance (i.e., sharp bends). Examination of the antenna surfaces using
a microscope showed that the insect matter ("bug tar") that coated
the antennas was "stretched" at the bend, but there was no other
disturbance of the insect matter. Evidently the antennas had not been scraped
or rubbed when they were bent. Also, the electric clock in the car and
Johnson's mechanical wristwatch both read 14 minutes slow, although Johnson
was certain he had set both before he had begun his nightly patrol.
- The damage to the car was physical evidence that something
strange had taken place. Careful studies of the damage were made by the
police department and by scientists working with the Center for UFO Studies.
They could find no evidence or reason to believe that Johnson had damaged
his own car. They could find no prosaic explanation for the sighting. Klass
also investigated the sighting. He spoke to several people who knew Johnson
and asked about his interest in UFOs. According to his friends he seemed
no more interested in UFOs than in numerous other subjects. They could
provide no reason to believe he would intentionally damage his car to create
a UFO incident. He might "hide your coffee cup," one gentleman
told Klass, but "as far as we know, he's never told any untruths."
- Klass concluded his discussion of the Officer Johnson
UFO sighting by offering two alternatives. He wrote:
- "The hard physical evidence leaves only two possible
explanations for this case. One is that Johnson's car was attacked by malicious
UFOnauts, who reached out and hit one headlight with a hammerlike device,
then hit the hood and windshield, then very gently bent the two radio antennas,
being careful not to break them, then reached inside the patrol car to
set back the hands of the watch on Johnson's arm and the clock on the car's
dashboard. These UFOnauts would then have taken off Johnsons' glasses,
aimed an intense ultraviolet light into his eyes, and replaced his glasses,
while being careful not to shine ultraviolet on his face.
- Or the incident is a hoax. There are simply no other
- Klass' amusing version of the "UFO/ET hypothesis"
should not detract from the importance of his statement that "There
are simply no other possible explanations." In other words, if it
was not a hoax then there is no prosaic explanation for this sighting.
Perhaps Klass realized that the hoax hypothesis was unconvincing at best
and intentionally tried to make the UFO alternative seem silly. (One envisions
"little green men" or "grey entities" molesting the
police car and Officer Johnson, perhaps laughing gleefully as they hammered
- The police department did not accuse Officer Johnson
of damaging the police car. Yet, Klass' book, published about 3 years after
the incident, clearly implies that this event had to be a hoax since it
was clearly not a misidentification or a delusion (recall that, according
to Klass, roughly 98% are misidentifications and the remainder are hoaxes
or delusions). Several years after the publication of the book I challenged
Klass to send a letter to the police chief of Warren, Minnesota, along
with a copy of his book chapter so that the police chief would realize
that he should charge Johnson with damaging the car. So far as I know,
Klass never did send such a letter and Officer Johnson has never been charged
with damaging the police car.
- Klass is not the first to offer prosaic explanations.
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who, in his later years, became a strong proponent
of UFO investigation (founder of the Center for UFO Studies in 1973), began
his "UFO career" in 1948 as a strong skeptic/debunker. His explanations
of a number of UFO sightings helped to set the tone of governmental UFO
investgation in the early years. One of his most unconvincing explanations
was that offered for the sighting by Mr. A. C. Urie and his two sons on
August 13, 1947. They lived in the Snake River Canyon at Twin Falls, Idaho.
According to the FBI investigative report of this case, at about 1:00 P.M.
Mr. Urie "sent his boys to the (Salmon) river to get some rope from
his boat. When he thought they were overdue he went outside to his tool
shed to look for them. He noticed them about 300 feet away looking in the
sky and he glanced up to see what he called the flying disc."
- This strange object was flying at high speed along the
canyon which is about 400 feet deep and 1,200 feet across at that point.
It was about 75 feet above the floor of the canyon (and so more than 300
ft below the edge of the canyon) and moving up and down as it flew. It
seemed to be following the contours of the hilly ground beneath it. Urie
estimated it was about 20 feet long and 10 feet wide and 10 feet high,
with what appeared to be exhaust ports on the sides. It was almost hat
shaped with a flat bottom and a dome on top. It's pale blue color made
Urie think that it would be very difficult to see against the sky, although
he had no trouble seeing it silhouetted against the opposite wall of the
canyon. On each side there was a tubular shaped fiery glow like some sort
of exhaust. He said that when it went over trees they didn't sway back
and forth but rather the treetops twisted around, which suggests that the
air under the object was being swirled into a vortex. He and his sons had
an excellent view of the object for a few seconds before it disappeared
over the trees about a mile away. He thought it was going 1,000 miles an
- Hynek offered the following "prosaic explanation"
which became part of the official Air Force record on the sighting (see
the files of Project Blue Book): an atmospheric eddy. Why this explanation?
The object appeared pale bluish in color, like the sky, and the trees were
moving around as if a swirling wind went over them. Hynek explained the
blue color as a "reflection" of the blue sky in the hypothetical
atmospheric eddy. He offered no explanation of how this eddy could appear
to have the strange "hat" shape, be traveling at about 1,000
miles per hour, how there could be a fiery glow at one location on the
side of the "eddy" or why the eddy would appear as a solid rather
than transparent object.
- With a little thought he could have realized that no
atmospheric eddy could reflect or bend light (as in a mirage) coming down
from the sky enough to redirect it toward the witnesses. An eddy is a density
inhomogeneity in the atmosphere which, in principle, might bend light by
a very small fraction of a degree. However, for Hynek's explanation to
work, the light would have to be bent five degrees or more, far beyond
anything the atmosphere could do. Hynek's explanation is another failed
prosaic explanation. Even Hynek realized this and repudiated his explanation
years later (see "THE HYNEK UFO REPORT", Dell Pub. co, NY, 1977).
- Another scientist with an excessive urge to explain was
Dr. Howard Menzel. In his first book, entitled FLYING SAUCERS (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1953) Menzel offered a blanket explanation
for sightings that occurred within the first 5 years of modern UFO sightings
(1947-1952): misidentified atmospheric phenomena including the effects
of the atmosphere on sunlight, unusual clouds caused by particular wind
patterns and mirage effects (light ray bending in the atmosphere). He suggested
several different atmospheric and cloud effects to account for the first
widely reported sighting, that of Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947. In later
books ("THE WORLD OF FLYING SAUCERS, Menzel and Boyd, Doubleday and
Company, Garden City, NY, 1963; THE UFO ENIGMA, THE DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION
OF THE UFO PHENOMENON, Menzel and Taves, Doubleday and Company, Garden
City, NY, 1977) he offered other atmosphere-related explanations and one
non-atmospheric explanation (water drops on the windshield of the airplane).
Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot, had reported seeing nine semicircular,
thin (compared to the length), shiny objects in a line flying southward
past the western flank of Mt. Rainier and then "in and out" of
a chain of mountains south of Rainier. The objects were therefore about
20 miles east of him (he was about 20 miles west and 10 miles south of
Mt. Rainier and flying east at the time). He timed their flight from Rainier,
southward, to Mt. Adams, a distance of about 50 miles. They crossed this
distance in 102 seconds. Hence the direct interpretation of Arnold's sighting
is that these objects were traveling at about 1,700 mph. (This was about
4 months before Yaeger exceeded the speed of sound in a test aircraft (October,
1947)). In reporting the speed calculation Arnold arbitrarily reduced the
speed considerably to account for possible errors in his measurements.
He publicly stated that the objects were traveling at about 1,200 mph.
Arnold reported that he first saw the objects as they flashed or reflected
the bright afternoon sunlight when they were north of Mt. Rainier and last
saw them (by their flashes) as they passed Mt. Adams. The total sighting
duration was 2 1/2 to 3 minutes.
- Dr. Hynek was the first scientist to try to explain Arnold's
sighting. Hynek couldn't except the large size and high speed implied by
Arnold's observation so he decided to ignore Arnold's claim that the objects
went in and out of the mountain peaks south of Mt. Rainier. By ignoring
this statement (essentially implying Arnold's had made a mistake in the
observation) Hynek was able to assume the objects were closer to Arnold.
Hynek settled on a 6 mile distance which meant that the speed could have
been much lower, like about 400 mph. Since this speed was within the capability
of fast military aircraft a the time Hynek identified the objects as "aircraft,"
thereby also ignoring Arnold's description of the objects.
- Hynek's work was done secretly for the Air Force in 1948
(under "Project Sign", the first of three projects for
UFO sighting analysis. The other two were Project Grudge [1949-1952] and
Project Blue Book [1952-1969] ). About 4 years later Dr. Menzel tackled
Arnold's sighting. In his first book, FLYING SAUCERS, Menzel summarized
the sighting and then criticized the Air Force for accepting Hynek's explanation
and went on to propose a much more "obvious" solution. Menzel
wrote, "(Arnold) clocked the speed at about 1,200 miles an hour, although
this figure seems inconsistent with the length of time that he estimated
them to be in view. From his previous statement they could scarcely have
traveled more than 25 miles during the three minutes that he watched. This
gives about 500 miles an hour, which is still a figure large enough to
be startling.." Note that Menzel did not tell the reader that Arnold
had timed the flight of the objects between two points. Instead, Menzel
invented a travel distance of 25 miles, and implied that this distance
was covered in 3 minutes (180 seconds). Hence he was able to assign a much
lower, although "startling," speed of 500 mph.
- Menzel went on to "solve" the mystery of Arnold's
sighting: "Although what Arnold saw has remained a mystery until this
day (1953), I simply cannot understand why the simplest and most obvious
explanation of all has been overlooked.... the association of the saucers
with the hogback (of the mountain range south of Mt. Rainier).... serves
to fix their distance and approximate size and roughly confirms Arnold's
estimate of the speed." (Note that Menzel, unlike Hynek, accepted
Arnold's distance estimate). Menzel then went on to suggest that Arnold
saw "billowing blasts of snow, ballooning up from the tops of the
ridges" caused by highly turbulent air along the mountain range. According
to Menzel, "These rapidly shifting, tilting clouds of snow would reflect
the sun like a mirror...and the rocking surfaces would make the chain sweep
along something like a wave, with only a momentary reflection from crest
- This first explanation by a scientist with the reputation
of Dr. Menzel may seem slightly convincing, but only until one realizes
that (a) blowing clouds of snow cannot reflect light rays from the sun
(60 deg elevation angle) into a horizontal direction toward Arnold's airplane
and thereby create the very bright flashes that Arnold reported in the
same way that a polished metal surface or mirror would, (b) there are no
1,200 mph or even 500 mph winds on the surface of the earth to transport
clouds of snow (fortunately!), (c) there are no winds that would carry
clouds of snow all the way from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams (Arnold saw the
objects pass Mt. Adams before they were lost to his view), (d) Arnold flew
eastward along a path that took him south of Mt. Rainier minutes later
and surely his plane would have been strongly buffeted (and perhaps destroyed!)
by such high winds, but he reported, instead, very calm conditions, (e)
an atmospheric oscillation wave can't bend or reflect light over an angle
of nearly 60 degrees, which would be necessary to make it appear as if
the sun had been reflected by objects nearly at Arnold's altitude, and
(f) an atmospheric oscillation wave with a "phase velocity" of
1,200 mph is unlikely, but in any case, when traveling southward its crests
would be oriented east-west, so if it reflected any sunlight at all (highly
unlikely), the reflection would be in the north-south direction and not
westward toward Arnold's plane. Furthermore, even if such amazing atmospheric
phenomena had occurred, it is difficult to imagine how Arnold could have
failed to realize that he was just seeing light reflected from snow blowing
from the mountain tops, especially since he flew over the mountains about
12 miles south of Mt. Rainier on his way east to Yakima, Washington, just
a few minutes after the sighting.
- In case the first explanation wasn't sufficiently convincing,
Menzel offered "another possibility:" he suggested that perhaps
there was a thin layer of fog, haze or dust just above or just below Arnold's
altitude which was caused to move violently by air circulation and which
reflected the sunlight. Menzel claimed that such layers can "reflect
the sun in almost mirror fashion." Menzel offered no substantiation
for this claim. Perhaps he was thinking in terms of a "forward reflection"
from an atmospheric layer when the sun is so low on the horizon (and nearly
along the line of sight to the reflection) that the light rays make a "grazing
angle" with the layer. If so, then that explanation as applied to
the Arnold sighting makes no sense since the sun was at an elevation of
60 degrees and southwest of Arnold, who was looking east. Furthermore,
layers form under stable conditions and violent air circulation would tend
to break them up so there would be no "reflections" of sunlight.
Again, one wonders how Arnold could have failed to notice that he was just
seeing the effects of a haze layer.
- Ten years after his first book, Dr. Menzel offered his
third, fourth and fifth explanations in his second book, THE WORLD OF FLYING
SAUCERS: mountain top mirages, "orographic clouds" and "wave
clouds in motion". To support the third explanation he presented a
photograph of mountain top mirages taken by a photographer many years earlier,
and proposed by the photographer, as the explanation for Arnold's sighting.
(This is the "official" Air Force explanation. It appears in
the files of Projects Sign/Grudge/Blue Book along with Hynek's explanation.
- These files are available to be reviewed on microfilm
at the National Archives.) The mirages appear as vague images above the
tops of the mountains. (Actually the mirage is an inverted image of the
top of the mountain.) These mirages can be seen under proper atmospheric
conditions (requiring a stable atmosphere) when the line of sight from
the observer to the mountain top is tilted by less than one half of a degree
above or below horizontal. Unintentionally (or intentionally?) Menzel failed
to report in his book the following information in Arnold's report: as
the objects traveled southward he saw them silhouetted against the side
of Mt. Rainier which is 14,400 ft high, much higher than the altitude of
the saucers. Since mountain top mirages occur above the mountain peaks
these objects were far below any mirage of Mt. Rainier. Of course, mountain
top mirages stay above the tops of the mountains, so the mirage theory
cannot explain the lateral high speed movement of the objects reported
by Arnold. Nor can a mirage explain the bright flashes of light from the
- Menzel's fourth explanation was that Arnold saw orographic
clouds which can assume circular shapes and often form in the lees (i.e.,
downwind of) mountain peaks. The clouds would, of course, be large but,
as Menzel notes in his book, they "appear to stand more or less motionless."
The lack of motion, as well as the lack of bright reflections, rules them
out, so why did he even mention them? Also, Arnold would have realized
they were just clouds as he flew past Mt. Rainier only minutes later.
- Menzel's fifth explanation, wave clouds, is comparable
to his first suggestion of "billowing blasts" of snow except
that this time he proposed clouds of water vapor instead of snow. In his
second book this explanation was supported by a photograph of such a cloud
taken by a newspaper photographer. However, this explanation, too, fails
to account for the very bright reflections reported by Arnold, for distinct
semi-circular shapes and for the high lateral speed. Again, Arnold surely
would have recognized a cloud as he flew past Mt. Rainier.
- In his third and last UFO book, THE UFO ENIGMA, subtitled
"The Definitive Explanation of the UFO Phenomenon," written in
the early 1970's, (just before Menzel died), he again discussed Arnold's
sighting and offered his sixth (and last) explanation: Arnold saw water
drops on the window of his aircraft.
- To support this explanation Menzel appealed to his own
sighting of "UFOs" that turned out to be water drops that had
condensed on the outside of the window of an aircraft in which he was flying.
They moved slowly backwards from the front of the window. They were so
close to his eyes as he looked out the window that they were out of focus
and he thought they were distant objects moving at a great speed until,
after a few seconds, he refocused his eyes and discovered what they were.
In comparing his "sighting" with Arnold's, Menzel writes: "I
cannot, of course, say definitely that what Arnold saw were merely raindrops
on the window of this plane. He would doubtless insist that there was no
rain at the altitude at which he was flying. But many queer things happen
at different levels in the earth's atmosphere."
- Although no one would argue with Menzel's claim that
"queer things" happen at different levels of the atmosphere,
this fact is irrelevant. Had Menzel bothered to carefully read Arnold's
letter to the Air Force he would have seen Arnold's statement that he turned
his plane sideways and viewed the objects through an open window to be
sure that he was getting no reflections from window glass. (Fortunately
Menzel did not propose water drops on Arnold's eyes!)
- The "bottom line" is that neither Hynek nor
Menzel proposed reasonable explanations for Arnold's sighting, but that
didn't stop the Air Force from accepting one of the explanations (mirage).
- In 1947, shortly after Arnold's sighting and during the
massive wave of sightings that occurred between late June and the middle
of July, other skeptical solutions to the sightings of Arnold and others
were proposed. Howard Blakeslee, the Associated Press Science Editor, wrote
an article that suggested "quirks of eyesight" could explain
the saucer mystery. He pointed out that anything looks round if it is too
far away to see details. "This law covers small things seen nearby
and large ones at great distances." He described his own sightings
of "flying saucers" which were bright reflections from distant
aircraft. "Planes at great distances tend to look round when light
is reflected from their sides." Blakeslee rejected the daytime meteor
hypothesis (see below) and the hypothesis that upper altitude ice crystals
formed "little round clouds." According to Blakeslee, "Nothing
published in science or atomic studies gives the slightest clue to flying
saucers unless the objects are aircraft."
- By Kal Korff <KalKorff@KalKorff.com 7-24-99
- Although I commend Dr. Brice Maccabee for SOME of the
points he makes in his article, I must take issue with some of his other
points, and submit the following:
- The citation of the Val Johnson case is a very BAD one
for one simple reason: despite a thorough forensic and physical analysis,
even Dr. Maccabee would have to admit that NOT THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF EVIDENCE
WAS EVERY FOUND TO INDICATE ANYTHING EXTRATERRESTRIAL!! :-(
- Thus, for anyone to use the Johnson case as "proof"
of something "extraordinary" is simply distorting the true nature
of the evidence and this case....or ABSENCE OF, in this specific case.
- The Johnson case is evidence of NOTHING, one way or another.
- I AGREE with Dr. Macabbee that MANY of Dr. Menzel's "explanations"
were absurd, and further add that Dr. Menzel often changed his "explanations"
when confronted by critics.
- However, what Dr. Macabbe and ALL UFO "believers"
MUST remember is this: the BURDEN of proof that we are being visited by
"extraterrestrials" does not rest on anyone's shoulders per se,
but their OWN.
- And from this perspective, the sad fact remains: THERE
IS NO HARD, SCIENTIFIC AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT UFO REPORTS REPRESENT
GENUINE VISITATIONS TO EARTH BY EXTRATERRESTRIALS.
- While Phil Klass and others have never come close to
explaining EVERY UFO report away, AGAIN, I REMIND EVERYONE READING THIS,
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO!!
- For until such "hard evidence" emerges, belief
that UFO reports represent true visitations by extraterrestrials remains
just that - a BELIEF, not grounded in hard, scientific fact.
- Again, such "hard evidence" has remained elusive,
if it indeed exists at all.
- As it has been said repeatedly before, "extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof," and sadly, the UFO "evidence"
does not wash, does not deliver such "proof" and while it MAY
SOMEDAY DO SO, the FACT remains that it does NOT at PRESENT.
- UFO reports are only "evidence" that people
believe they are seeing, or are seeing "something." However,
WHAT that "something" is, we STILL do not know, and thus while
I believe that such reports are WORTHY OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY, to profess
to "know" what UFOs are, or worse, where they're from, requires
a leap of FAITH, and not science.
- Kal Korff Author, "The Roswell UFO Crash: What They
Don't Want You to Know" "Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy
Meier Story." President and CEO, CriticalThinkers