Exobiology: UFOs: The UFO Smoking Gun(s)

Exobiology was the original term given to the sciences central to the question of life-in-the-Universe. It’s now been largely replaced by Astrobiology, but I’ll stick with the original. Assuming one or more extraterrestrial civilizations with advanced, interstellar spaceflight capability exists; then they know about Planet Earth. Say ‘hi’ to those pesky UFOs. The bona fide UFOs are UFOs that remain UFOs even after the experts have finished their analysis. That residue still amounts to a heck of a lot of unknowns. What we want of course is the best of that lot – the smoking gun(s).

The often used phrase by UFO sceptics such as Carl Sagan (and others) tends to be along the lines that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. Hogwash! Extraordinary claims require no more, or no less, evidence than any other type of claim. If I say I have a doghouse in my backyard with a dog standing in front of it, you may not believe me. But, if you go in the backyard, and see, photograph, even scientifically measure said doghouse and dog, my claim is validated. If I say there’s a flying saucer in my backyard with a being that clearly doesn’t resemble any terrestrial creature standing besides it, you may really, Really, REALLY not believe me. But if you go into the backyard and see, photograph, even scientifically measure said flying saucer and alien, my claim is again validated. There’s nothing different in principle between the two claims and the evidence needed to back them up.

Further, what is perceived as being ‘extraordinary’ lies solely in the mind of the individual. What is extraordinary to me might be mundane to you. Perhaps that’s why legislation and courts of law don’t make distinctions between extraordinary claims and ordinary claims. Proof is required for any claim, at least beyond reasonable doubt. In science, do extraordinary claims require say three or four times as many observations, and/or experiments, and/or predictions, and/or collaborators and peer-reviewers as less extraordinary or routine claims before peer-reviewed articles are allowed to be published in the scientific literature? Of course not - there’s nothing in the rulebook of peer-reviewed scientific journals that require any such thing.

In the case of the ordinary or extraordinary (take your pick) claim that UFOs = ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence), that evidence tends to be more elusive, but no more or less so than other phenomena that is unpredictable, doesn’t stand still, and we can’t bring to the laboratory and put under a microscope. But, as there have been ‘smoking guns’ for those sorts of natural phenomena, so to might there be a smoking gun(s) that provide evidence for the claim that (at least one or more) UFOs = ETI.

So what is the best UFO = ETI case ever? Well, the answer is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, if you quizzed 100 ufologists, you’d probably get 80 (or more) different answers. There would be little agreement. That suggests that in fact there are a lot of good documented UFO case studies that remain unidentified. In fact, you don’t need to quiz ufologists. The University of Colorado (Condon) Scientific Study into UFOs (1968) is full of marvellous unsolved UFO cases!

One needs some sort of criteria to winnow out the wheat from the chaff. I would suggest that firstly you must have a multi-witness sighting, witnesses who are independent of each other, from two or more vantage points, and who have no obvious reason to lie, axe to grind or profit motive. Secondly, at least one of those witnesses should be knowledgeable about the sky and atmospheric/astronomical phenomena (such as a pilot, physical scientist, or a person who spends lots of time outdoors). Thirdly, the duration of the sighting should be long enough to rule out the element of surprise and thus snap judgments, and of course the closer the better. Fourthly, there should be at least one independent physical record – motion picture, ground imprint, radar return, etc. Fifthly, the object(s) ideally should have exhibited some degree of artificial manoeuvrability and intelligent control (changes in speed, direction, evasive actions, etc.). Sixthly, an earlier case is better than a latter case as earlier cases have less probability of having a psychological, social, cultural witness bias, even if unintentional. [It could be argued therefore that perhaps the best modern UFO case is the June 1947 Kenneth Arnold one – no contamination was possible from whatever went on before.] Lastly, the case should have been investigated by those qualified to do so – responsible, unbiased and professional scientists and/or military officers – and found to be unidentifiable to a high degree of probability. 

So, what’s my favourite ‘smoking gun’? Faced with a choice of hundreds I’ve read extensively about, I’m partial to the dual July, 1952 Washington, D.C. sightings. The only criterion I listed above that was not met was that there was in fact a ‘solution’ found. The answer was apparently temperature inversions.  Based on all I’ve read about the case, I don’t think any serious investigator, atmospheric physicist, etc. believes that for a moment! This was one case where it was politically mandatory that a natural ‘solution’ be found and provided to the public in quick-smart fashion, seeing as how the air space over the American capitol is highly restricted. It just wouldn’t do to have extraterrestrials flying over and buzzing the White House. In any event, it certainly was an example of “credible observers of relatively incredible things” – a phrase used by a high ranking military officer, USAF Major-General John A. Samford, at a Pentagon press conference called because of the intense press interest and public pressure over the sightings.