UFOs: The Observational Reality Supporting Extraterrestrial Visitations: Part Two

The Fermi Paradox postulates that extraterrestrials should be visiting Planet Earth. That’s the theoretical part of the equation. UFOs provide the counterpoint – the observational part of the equation.

First I’d better define exactly what I mean by a UFO. To me, a bona-fide UFO is any UFO that remains a UFO after comprehensive investigation and analysis by qualified experts have failed to identify the object as any known natural or man-made phenomena. The tag ‘unidentified’ means that the conclusion was that it couldn’t have even been a possible or probable natural or man-made phenomena, but what exactly it was remains totally ‘unidentified’ and probably forever unidentifiable. Observational evidence is suggestive that these bona fide UFOs could be extraterrestrial visitations - the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Sceptics would argue that the burden of proof that extraterrestrials are behind (at least some of) the UFO phenomena lies with the believers – those who claim such is the case. And that’s true. But there’s another side to that coin. Sceptics need to look at what evidence is presented and not have a mind-in-a-closet attitude.

What’s the general evidence for UFOs? Well, you have multi-tens of thousands of sightings, probably six figures worth by now, many multi-witness sightings, more than a few independent multi-witness sightings; sightings by people used to outdoors aerial phenomena (like pilots), films and photographs that have defied the best experts to explain them in conventional terms, radar returns, physical traces, physiological effects on biological tissues, including humans, often more than one of these categories applies. You have a global phenomena, where countries from Australia, the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, France, Russia, Mexico, etc. have devoted considerable resources to finding answers to what some see as a ‘silly season’ with a high ‘giggle’ factor. That makes little logical sense – the ‘giggle’ factor, not the official investigations. There are neither psychological, sociological or cultural reasons to explain the origin of UFOs in general, nor specific UFO reports. It’s all evidence, and grist for the mill.  The crux of the matter is not lack of evidence; it is how that evidence is interpreted. So take the bona-fide UFO residue.  Now what is this residue and what happens if you apply Occam’s Razor to it? Well, maybe bona-fide UFOs are just ghosts, or angels, or the work of the devil, or some nation’s secret weapons, or craft from an advanced civilization that inhabits our hollow Earth! Or, maybe the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is the most plausible. I think Occam’s Razor would err on the side of the ETH.

There must be something suggestive within the evidence to point in the ETH direction, and nearly from the very beginning of the modern UFO phenomena (June 1947). The idea or association didn’t just pop out of the ether for no reason

The trouble with UFOs is that they won’t stand still! You can’t put them under a microscope, poke and prod them, or study and measure them at your leisure like you can most phenomena. You can’t predict in advance where and when and for how long they will appear. 

Anyone who poo-poos the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs, “it can’t be therefore it isn’t”, clearly hasn’t actually studied the subject, read the literature, studied official government investigations and reports, done personal field investigations and interviewed witnesses. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of sightings, worldwide, over all these decades, all it takes is one (smoking gun) case to validate the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Is there anyone out there who can say for 100% certainty that at least one case isn’t the real deal?

Now I don’t want anyone to tell me that the University of Colorado UFO investigation on behalf of the USAF, the Condon Report, closed the book on the subject – not unless you have real the entire report and not just the introductory / summary first chapter. There is no similarity between the questions the actual report raises and the conclusions reached and given in that first chapter. Few people have taken the time to separate the wheat from the chaff in the Condon Report. The first chapter is the chaff; the bulk of the report contains the wheat. So, read the entire report – do so, and then talk to me!

Every major country has had, or does have, either an official UFO investigations programme, or at least investigates reports of UFOs – six decades after the ‘fad’ began! Australia, Canada, France, England, Belgium, the USA, etc., etc. all have or have had UFO investigation programs. So, conclusion number one is that senior officials took, and many still take, the phenomena quite seriously. FOI requests have shown serious interest in the UFO area by not only the USAF, but by the FBI and CIA as well, continuing even after the USAF supposedly got out of the UFO investigations area, as a result of the above cited Condon (University of Colorado) study. It’s not just the great unwashed, low IQ, blue-collar population who are interested. 

In contrast, have you ever heard of, or are you aware of, government bodies investigating Bigfoot sightings, or ghosts, or spoon bending, or the Bermuda Triangle (in general – specific incidents are of course investigated by relevant safety maritime and/or aviation and/or military authorities), or the Ouija board or astrology? You probably have not, because these concepts aren’t taken seriously, and the public would be outraged if their tax dollars were so used. 

As an aside, I find it interesting that the American Congress has often voted against publicly funding SETI (legit science if there ever was). To this day SETI is mainly funded by private individuals and institutions. However, the American Congress has never voted down, cut, or denied funds to the USAF to investigate UFOs. That’s interesting. I’m not aware of any American congressman or senator ever arguing or voting against official government funding spent investigating UFOs - how very, very interesting. Are you aware of any? What’s also interesting is that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have revealed that both the FBI and the CIA have had an intense interest in the subject, despite pre-FOI denials of any interest. So, that’s a lot of top level interest in a silly-season subject with a high ‘giggle’ factor. Read into it what you will.

Each and every UFO investigation has yielded up a reasonable percentage of cases that despite the best scientific and/or military scrutiny remain unknown as to what the ultimate cause was. That is not in dispute.

Unknown cases include not only independent multiple witness testimony, but physical evidence – photographs, motion pictures, radar returns, electromagnetic effects, physiological and psychological effects and physical ground traces. That is not is dispute. You’ll find documentation in the official government investigations and reports. 

There are professional scientists, senior military officials*, senior government officials, and a host of other people in responsible positions who have witnessed UFOs (airline and military pilots; astronauts, police officers, etc.) who have either spoken out as pro-UFO or a minimum state that this is a legitimate phenomenon. That is not in dispute – it is on the public record. In particular, see the recent book by Leslie Kean listed below.

What we need is a/the smoking gun. Not quite THE smoking gun, but one of many, may highly unexplained UFO cases, is the events surrounding Frederick Valentich on 21 October 1978. It’s more a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke, but smoke there certainly is, and lots of it.

In a nutshell, on the evening of that date, Mr. Valentich piloted a private plane from Melbourne, intended destination, King Island in Bass Strait. He took off only to shortly thereafter radio in that there was this UFO hovering over him. The UFO was spotted by several independent witnesses. While radioing his observations, all contact ceased; all communications abruptly ended. Mr. Valentich, plane and all, vanished without trace. An extensive air and sea search failed to find any sign of Mr. Valentich, or his plane. No oil slick, no floating wreckage, no body – nothing, zip, bugger-all. No trace has ever been found of pilot or plane – not then, not since, not ever. The weather had been perfect for night flying.

One obvious explanation was that Mr. Valentich staged his own disappearance, although friends and family could offer no reason why he would do so. Of course many people voluntarily disappear themselves for various reasons; many eventually are found, are caught or reappear voluntarily. But keep in mind; it wasn’t just Mr. Valentich who disappeared. One entire aircraft vanished as well, never to be seen again. Surely if Mr. Valentich wanted to ‘drop out’, there were easier and less conspicuous ways of doing so.  If he had deliberately gone walkabout, in these decades since of security cameras and computer facial software recognition technology, it would be hard to remain an unknown walkabout in any populated area.

Was suicide a motive? Again, no wreckage or body was ever found, and who would go to all the bother of reporting a non-existent UFO overhead – a non-existent UFO that happened to be independently reported by others.

And what of the plane since no wreckage was ever found floating on the surface of Bass Strait; washed up on beaches, or found on the ocean bottom – Bass Strait isn’t that deep.

It’s a mystery, and while it doesn’t prove aliens nicked off with Mr. Valentich and plane, there’s not that much wriggle room. Now multiply this sort of unexplained case by the thousands worldwide, and you do have the ETH as a plausible hypothesis.

Interestingly, despite my asking for a copy of the Valentich ‘accident’ case report in an official capacity related to my employment at the time, the Department of Transport (Air Safety Investigations Branch) refused. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, that report has never been publicly released.

[Further reading: Haines, Richard F.; Melbourne Episode: Case Study of A Missing Pilot; L.D.A. Press, Los Altos, California; 1987: Dr. Haines was at the time a research scientist for NASA and an accredited air safety investigations officer.]

Kean, Leslie; UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record; Harmony Books, New York; 2010:

*For example, USAF Major-General John A. Samford, at a Pentagon press conference in late July 1952 made the statement with respect to the then recent Washington D.C. UFO flap that these sightings were by “credible observers of relatively incredible things”. It’s on the public record.

 

To be continued...

Pilots & UFOs: Flying the Deadly Skies: Part Two

There have been thousands of pilots who have died while piloting, even apart from those killed in battle, that haven’t involved UFOs. There have been (by now) thousands of encounters between pilots and UFOs that haven’t involved death. However, there is an intersection between these two categories. 

The phrase “unidentified flying objects” suggests that UFOs have an affinity with our terrestrial pilots – both fly and share our airspace. Thus, terrestrial pilots should have seen and reported a goodly proportion of UFO events. And that indeed is the case. There’s been many an interesting close encounter between military, commercial and private pilots. No great news there. However, there have been several UFO incidents that have resulted in the death or disappearance (and presumed death) of the pilot(s) and sometimes crew too. That ratchets up the seriousness ante quite considerably.

UFO sightings by airline pilots (military, civilian, and private) now number in the thousands. Unfortunately, there have been instances of pilots who have died or who have gone missing (presumed dead) while witnessing, pursuing or otherwise involved with some form or other of UFO-related activity. That alone suggests that UFOs are not only a serious business, but also at times a deadly business.

The list of pilot encounters with UFOs is now so extensive that it would take several book length volumes to adequately cover the subject. There is however that deadly subset of those pilot-related encounters. Here are a few of the better known case histories and fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, they are relatively few. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

KINROSS INCIDENT (1953): On the 23^rd of November, 1953, First Lieutenant Felix Moncla (pilot) and Second Lieutenant Robert L. Wilson (radar operator) were scrambled from Kinross Air Force Base in their United States Air Force (USAF) F-89 Scorpion to investigate the incursion into American air space, just on the American-Canadian border and over Lake Superior of an unknown aircraft that had been detected by Air Defense Command radar at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. At roughly 8000 feet elevation, after being guided by ground radar tracking that was also required for an intercept, an intercept was accomplished. Ground Control tracked the F-89 Scorpion and the unidentified object as two separate blips on their radar screen. The two blips on the radar screen grew closer and closer, until they seemed to merge as one return blip. Assuming that pilot Lt. Moncla had flown either under or over the target, Ground Control thought that moments later, the Scorpion and the object would again appear as two separate blips. There was little actual fear that the two objects had struck one another in collision. To their astonishment, rather, the now single blip disappeared from the radar screen, and then there was no radar return at all. The F-89 apparently merged with the other mystery radar return. Its IFF signal also disappeared after the two returns merged on the radar scope. Attempts were made to contact Lt. Moncla via radio, but this was unsuccessful. A search and rescue operation was quickly mounted, but found not a trace of the plane or the pilots and radar officer.

The USAF reported that Lt. Moncla and Lt. Wilson had crashed and that the ‘unknown’ object was only a misidentified Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) aircraft. The official USAF Accident Investigation Report identified the unidentified second aircraft as a RCAF C-47 Dakota VC-912, crossing Northern Lake Superior from west to east at 7,000 feet en route from Winnipeg to Sudbury, Canada, that had traveled off course.

But, on multiple occasions, the RCAF refuted their involvement in the intercept incident, in correspondence with members of the public asking for further details on the alleged encounter.

So, like the Valentich case below, did a bona-fide UFO make off with an aircraft and crew? No trace of the F-89, Lt. Moncla or Lt. Wilson has, to this day, been found despite the alleged ‘crash’ in the official report.

SCHAFFNER INCIDENT (1970): United States Air Force (USAF) pilot Captain William Schaffner was on an exchange program serving with the British Royal Air Force (RAF) in September 1970 at RAF Binbrook. On the 8^th of that month an unknown objected was picked up by radar at various locations, and aircraft from various bases in Iceland and Scotland were directed to take off and investigate it. However, the object in question kept playing hide-and-seek, appearing on and off radar scopes as various aircraft approached, thus forcing them to ultimately abandon the chase and return to base.

When it became Capt. Schaffner’s turn to investigate and intercept, piloting a Lightning, the object quit playing games allowing the officer to make visual contact. He spotted and described a dazzling blue conical-shaped object minutes before his plane then disappeared off the radar. It would seem at first glance that his plane and the object merged, the object then moving off at high speed, but that was only apparent as the disappearance of the Lightning aircraft off the radar was because for one reason or another Capt. Schaffner was flying way too low and actually flew directly into the North Sea.  And that’s when the real puzzles start.

The aircraft was located (within three weeks) and recovered from the bottom of the North Sea shortly thereafter (within three months) of the incident. The Lightning aircraft was largely intact with minimal damage; no explosion, in fact no signs of any mechanical failure that would have led to the crash. The canopy was in place and closed. Unfortunately, there was no body of Capt. Schaffner within the plane. Capt Schaffner’s body has never been found – and he did not eject from the cockpit into a survival dinghy.

So was the missing pilot snatched by aliens? The Board of Inquiry came to the conclusion Capt Schaffner manually abandoned the aircraft, but because he has not been found, he was presumed to have drowned during or after his escape. But, since the aircraft canopy was in place when the Lightning was lifted out of the sea (and pictures confirm that), how did the pilot exit the craft? So, regardless of what the unknown object was, and some say it was nothing but a slow moving Shackleton maritime reconnaissance aircraft that had lost radio contact with the outside world that Capt. Schaffner was trying to intercept and not a bona-fide UFO at all, you still have a UFO incident and one missing, presumed dead pilot. Of course if aliens did somehow manage to abduct Capt. Schaffner while in the air, that would explain why his now unmanned jet landed in the drink!

VALENTICH INCIDENT (1978): America, the U.K., so why not Australia? One of many, many highly unexplained UFO cases is the events surrounding Frederick Valentich on 21 October 1978. It’s more a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke, but smoke there certainly is, and lots of it.

In a nutshell, on the evening of that date, in perfect weather for night flying, Mr. Valentich piloted a private plane from Melbourne, intended destination, King Island in Bass Strait. He took off only to shortly thereafter radio in repeatedly asking if there was another aircraft in his vicinity. That was a negative according to air traffic control.  This ‘aircraft’ ultimately started hovering or orbiting over him. Let’s now call a spade a spade here and state the ‘aircraft’ was a UFO. The UFO was also spotted by several independent witnesses. While radioing in his observations, ultimately acknowledging at the end that the mysterious ‘aircraft’ was not an aircraft, all contact ceased; all communications abruptly ended. Mr. Valentich, plane and all, vanished without trace. An extensive air and sea search failed to find any sign of Mr. Valentich, or his plane. No oil slick, no floating wreckage, no body – nothing, zip, bugger-all. No trace has ever been found of pilot or plane – not then, not since, not ever.

One obvious explanation was that Mr. Valentich staged his own disappearance, although friends and family could offer no reason why he would do so. Of course many people voluntarily disappear themselves for various reasons; many eventually are found, are caught or reappear voluntarily. But keep in mind; it wasn’t just Mr. Valentich who disappeared. One entire aircraft vanished as well, never to be seen again. Surely if Mr. Valentich wanted to ‘drop out’, there were easier and way less conspicuous ways of doing so.  If he had deliberately gone walkabout, in these decades since of security cameras and computer facial software recognition technology, it would be hard to remain an unknown walkabout in any populated area.

Was suicide a motive? Again, no wreckage or body was ever found, and who would go to all the bother of reporting a non-existent UFO overhead – a non-existent UFO that happened to be independently reported by others. Anyway, no suicide note was found.

And what of the plane since no wreckage was ever found floating on the surface of Bass Strait; washed up on beaches, or found on the ocean bottom – Bass Strait isn’t that deep.

It’s a mystery, and while it doesn’t prove aliens nicked off with Mr. Valentich and plane, there’s not that much wriggle room.

Interestingly, despite my (and others) asking for a copy of the Valentich ‘accident’ case report in an official capacity related to my employment at the time, the Department of Transport (Air Safety Investigations Branch) refused. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, that report has never been publicly released. A summary report was issued mainly giving the transcript of Valentich’s final conversation with air traffic control with the conclusion being that they could not determine the exact cause into the mishap.

In conclusion, there really is no common high strangeness thread here (though I’d suggest a few of the above incidents are individually in a high strangeness category), just a UFO incident and a dead pilot, sometimes pilot and crew. But that alone is enough to strongly suggest that UFOs are a serious business indeed.

Exobiology: Bibliography: Part Three

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. To investigate life-in-the-Universe one needs a solid grounding in the relevant literature. A comprehensive relevant bibliography would run to many thousands of pages and be rather off-putting. So, perhaps something on a slightly smaller scale might be more in order to help the novice get started. 

For something that doesn’t yet exist, extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise, has hatched a massive amount of literature, both technical and popular, in English and otherwise. There are speculative books, articles, documentaries, etc. that number in the tens of thousands. Add the sci-fi contributions into the mix, and you have tens of thousands more entries. Here are just samplings of some of the non-fictional monographs that have touched on some of the topics raised so far.

Further Readings: Unidentified Flying Objects

Adler, Bill (Editor); Letters to the Air Force on UFOs; Dell Publishing Company, N.Y.; 1967:

Druffel, Ann; Firestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald’s Fight for UFO Science; Wild Flower Press, Columbus, North Carolina; 2003:

Evans, Hilary & Spencer, John (Editors); UFOs: 1947-1987: The 40-Year Search for an Explanation; Fortean Tomes, London; 1987:

Evans, Hilary & Stacy, Dennis (Editors); A World History of UFOs; Red Sparrow, Potts Point, NSW; 1997:

Fuller, John G. (Editor); Aliens in the Skies: The New UFO Battle of the Scientists: The Scientific Rebuttal to the Condon Committee Report: Testimony by Six Leading Scientists Before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics July 29, 1968; G.P. Putnam’s Sons, N.Y.; 1969:

Harkins, R. Roger & Saunders, David R; UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong; Signet Books, N.Y.; 1968: [Saunders was a member of the University of Colorado UFO Study.]

Hynek, J. Allen; The Hynek UFO Report; Dell Publishing Company, N.Y.; 1977: [Dr. Hynek was a scientific consultant to the USAF UFO investigations.]

Hynek, J. Allen; The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry; Henry Regnery Company, Chicago; 1972: [Dr. Hynek was a scientific consultant to the USAF UFO investigations.]

Jacobs, David M. (Editor); UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge; University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas; 2000: 

Kean, Leslie; UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record; Harmony Books, New York; 2010:

Maccabee, Bruce; UFO-FBI Connection; Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, Minnesota; 2000:

National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP); The UFO Evidence; NICAP, Washington, D.C.; 1964:

National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP); United States Air Force Projects Grudge and Bluebook Reports 1-12 (1951-1953); NICAP, Washington, D.C.; 1968:

Page, Thornton & Sagan, Carl (Editors); UFO’s: A Scientific Debate; Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.; 1972:

Pope, Nick; Open Skies, Closed Minds: For the First Time A Government UFO Expert Speaks Out; Simon & Schuster, London; 1996: [Nick Pope was the former UK UFO investigations officer for the British Government.]

Pope, Nick; The Uninvited: An Expose of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon; Simon & Schuster, London; 1997: [Nick Pope was the former UK UFO investigations officer for the British Government.]

Randle, Kevin D.; Project Blue Book Exposed; Marlowe & Company, N.Y.; 1997:

Redfern, Nicholas; The FBI Files; Simon & Schuster, London; 1998:

Ruppelt, Edward J.; The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects; Ace Books, N.Y.; 1956:

[Ruppelt was a former head of the USAF Project Blue Book.]

Sachs, Margaret; The UFO Encyclopedia; Perigee Books, N.Y.; 1980:

Smith, Marcia S. & Havas, George D.; The UFO Enigma; Congressional Research Service; The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; 20 June 1983:

Spencer, John (Compiler/Editor); The UFO Encyclopedia; Headline Book Publishing, London; 1991:

Steiger, Brad (Editor); Project Blue Book: The Top UFO Findings Revealed!; Ballantine Books, N.Y.; 1976:

Story, Ronald D. (Editor); The Encyclopedia of UFOs; Dolphin Books, Garden City, N.Y.; 1980:

Tacker, Lt. Col. Lawrence J;  Flying Saucers and the U.S. Air Force: The Official Air Force Story; D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.; Princeton, N.J.; 1960:

University of Colorado & Gillmor, Daniel S. (Editor); Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects Conducted by the University of Colorado Under Contract  to the United States Air Force; Bantam Books, N.Y.; 1969: [The Condon Committee Report.]

Further Readings: Unidentified Flying Objects: The (University of Colorado) Condon Report:

Fuller, John G. (Editor); Aliens in the Skies: The New UFO Battle of the Scientists: The Scientific Rebuttal to the Condon Committee Report: Testimony by Six Leading Scientists Before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics July 29, 1968; G.P. Putnam’s Sons, N.Y.; 1969:

Harkins, R. Roger & Saunders, David R; UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong; Signet Books, N.Y.; 1968: [Saunders was a member of the University of Colorado UFO Study.]

University of Colorado & Gillmor, Daniel S. (Editor); Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects Conducted by the University of Colorado Under Contract  to the United States Air Force; Bantam Books, N.Y.; 1969: [The Condon Committee Report.]

Further Readings: Unidentified Flying Objects: Case Studies

Haines, Richard F.; Melbourne Episode: Case Study of A Missing Pilot; L.D.A. Press, Los Altos, California; 1987: Dr. Haines was at the time a research scientist for NASA and an accredited air safety investigations officer.]

Further Readings: Unidentified Flying Objects: Case Studies: Roswell

Berliner, Don & Friedman, Stanton T.; Crash at Corona: The U.S. Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of A UFO; Paragon House, New York; 1992:

Berlitz, Charles & Moore, William L.; The Roswell Incident; Grosset & Dunlap, New York; 1980:

Carey, Thomas J. & Schmitt, Donald R.; Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the 60-Year Cover-Up; Career Press, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey; 2007: 

Corso, Philip J. & Birnes, William J.; The Day After Roswell; Pocket Books, New York; 1997: 

Eberhart, George M. (Editor); The Roswell Report: A Historical Perspective; Center for UFO Studies, Chicago; 1991:

Hesemann, Michael & Mantle, Philip; Beyond Roswell: The Alien Autopsy Film, Area 51, & the U.S. Government Coverup of UFOs; Michael O’Mara Books Limited, London; 1997:

Klass, Philip J.; The Real Roswell Crashed-Saucer Coverup; Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York; 1997:

Korff, Kal K.; The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don’t Want You To Know; Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York; 1997:

Marcel, Jesse (Jr.) & Marcel, Linda; The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site; New Page Books, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey; 2009:

McAndrew, James & Weaver, Richard L.; The Roswell Report: Fact Versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert; Headquarters United States Air Force, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC; 1995:

Moore, Charles B., Saler, Benson & Ziegler, Charles A.; UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of A Modern Myth; Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC; 1997:

Randle, Kevin; Roswell UFO Crash Update: Exposing the Military Cover-up of the Century; Global Communications, New Brunswick, New Jersey; 1995:

Randle, Kevin D. & Schmitt, Donald R.; The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell; Avon Books, New York; 1994:

Randle, Kevin D. & Schmitt, Donald R.; UFO Crash at Roswell; Avon Books, New York; 1991:

Shawcross, Tim; The Roswell File; Bloomsbury, London; 1997:

Strieber, Whitley; Majestic; G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York; 1989: [Note: A novel and fictional account.]

Further Readings: Alien Abductions in General:

Bryan, C.D.B.; Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind: Alien Abduction, UFOs, and the Conference at M.I.T.; Alfred A. Knopf, New York; 1995:

Cone, William P. & Estes, Russ & Randle, Kevin D.; The Abduction Enigma: The Truth Behind the Mass Alien Abductions of the Late Twentieth Century; Forge, New York; 1999: 

Fiore, Edith; Encounters: A Psychologist Reveals Case Studies of Abductions by Extraterrestrials; Doubleday, New York; 1989:

Hopkins, Budd; Missing Time: A Documented Study of UFO Abductions; Richard Marek Publishers, New York; 1981: 

Jacobs, David M.; Secret Life: Firsthand Accounts of UFO Abductions; Simon & Schuster, New York; 1992:

Klass, Philip J.; Abductions: A Dangerous Game; Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York; 1988: [Note: A sceptic’s analysis of UFO abductions.]

Lorenzen, Coral & Lorenzen, Jim; Abducted! Confrontations With Beings from Outer Space; Berkley medallion books, New York; 1977:

Mack, John E.; Abduction: Human Encounters With Aliens; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York; 1994:

Mantle, Philip & Nagaitis, Carl; Without Consent: A Comprehensive Survey of Missing-Time and Abduction Phenomena in the UK; Ringpull Press, London; 1994:

Pritchard, Andrea et al. (Editors); Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference Held at M.I.T., Cambridge, MA; North Cambridge Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1994.

Randles, Jenny; Abduction: Over 200 Documented UFO Kidnappings Exhaustively Investigated; Robert Hale, London; 1988:

Randles, Jenny; Alien Contacts & Abductions: The Real Story from the Other Side; Sterling Publishing, New York; 1994:

Rogo, D. Scott (Editor); UFO Abductions: True Cases of Alien Kidnappings; Signet, New York; 1980:

Turner, Karla; Taken: Inside the Alien-Human Abduction Agenda; Kelt Works, Roland, Arkansas; 1994:

Further Readings: Alien Abductions: The Betty & Barney Hill UFO Abduction:

Friedman, Stanton T. & Marden, Kathleen; Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience; New Page Books, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey; 2007: [Kathleen Marden is the late Betty Hill’s niece and trustee of her estate.]

Fuller, John G.: The Interrupted Journey: Two Lost Hours “Aboard a Flying Saucer”; Dial Press, New York; 1966:

Further Readings: Alien Abductions: Other Case Studies:

Druffel, Ann & Rogo, D. Scott; The Tujunga Canyon Contacts; Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 1980:

Fowler, Raymond E.; The Allagash Abductions: Undeniable Evidence of Alien Intervention; Wild Flower Press, Tigard, Oregon; 1993:

Fowler, Raymond E.; The Andreasson Affair; Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 1979:

Fowler, Raymond E.; The Andreasson Affair: Phase Two; Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 1982:

Hickson, Charles & Mendez, Williams; UFO Contact at Pascagoula; Wendelle C. Stevens, Tucson, Arizona; 1983:

Hopkins, Budd; Intruders: The Incredible Visitations at Copley Woods; Random House, New York; 1987:

Hopkins, Budd; Witnessed: The True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions; Pocket Books, New York; 1996:

Turner, Karla; Into the Fringe: A True Story of Alien Abduction; Berkley Books, New York; 1992:

Walters, Ed & Walters, Frances; UFO Abductions in Gulf Breeze; Avon Books, New York; 1994:

Walton, Travis; Fire in the Sky: The Walton Experience; Marlowe & Company, New

York; 1996:

Walton, Travis; The Walton Experience; Berkley Medallion Books, New York; 1978:

Exobiology: UFOS: Two Case Studies

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. Here are just two of them.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 1952:  In July 1952, on two separate occasions, separated by one week, UFOs buzzed America’s National Capitol, making long term incursions over restricted air space. They were tracked, independently, by various civilian and military radars. Military jet fighters were scrambled to intercept and identify the UFOs, but were outmatched and didn’t succeed, although they were witnessed by the pilots. The objects were also witnessed from the ground. USAF Major-General John A. Samford, at the largest Pentagon press conference ever held since WWII, in late July 1952, made the statement with respect to the recent Washington D.C. UFO flap that these sightings were made by “credible observers of relatively incredible things”. It’s on the public record.

Now of course these sightings had to be explained by any means necessary since you just cannot admit to having unknown aerial objects fly over restricted air space. So the idea of ‘temperature inversions’ explained all - hogwash. It’s amazing that the common occurrence of ‘temperature inversions’ had never before, and never since, caused such commotion.  

Further readings regarding Washington, D.C. (July 1952):

Randle, Kevin D.; Invasion Washington: UFOs Over the Capitol; HarperCollins Publishers, New York; 2001:

Ruppelt, Edward J.; The Washington Merry-Go-Round (in); The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects; Ace Books, New York; 1956; pages 207-227: [Edward Ruppelt was a former head of the USAF's UFO investigations, Project Blue Book.]

VALENTICH 1978: One of many, many highly unexplained UFO cases were the events surrounding Frederick Valentich on 21 October 1978. It’s more a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke, but smoke there certainly is, and lots of it.

In a nutshell, on the evening of that date, Mr. Valentich piloted a private plane from Melbourne, intended destination, King Island in Bass Strait. He took off only to shortly thereafter radio in that there was this UFO hovering over him. The UFO was spotted by several independent witnesses. While radioing his observations, all contact ceased; all communications abruptly ended. Mr. Valentich, plane and all, vanished without trace. An extensive air and sea search failed to find any sign of Mr. Valentich, or his plane. No oil slick, no floating wreckage, no body – nothing, zip, bugger-all. No trace has ever been found of pilot or plane – not then, not since, not ever. The weather had been perfect for night flying.

One obvious explanation was that Mr. Valentich staged his own disappearance, although friends and family could offer no reason why he would do so. Of course many people voluntarily disappear themselves for various reasons; many eventually are found, are caught or reappear voluntarily. But keep in mind; it wasn’t just Mr. Valentich who disappeared. One entire aircraft vanished as well, never to be seen again. Surely if Mr. Valentich wanted to ‘drop out’, there were easier and less conspicuous ways of doing so.  If he had deliberately gone walkabout, in these decades since of security cameras and computer facial software recognition technology, it would be hard to remain an unknown walkabout in any populated area.

Was suicide a motive? Again, no wreckage or body was ever found, and who would go to all the bother of reporting a non-existent UFO overhead – a non-existent UFO that happened to be independently reported by others.

And what of the plane since no wreckage was ever found floating on the surface of Bass Strait; washed up on beaches, or found on the ocean bottom – Bass Strait isn’t that deep.

It’s a mystery, and while it doesn’t prove aliens nicked off with Mr. Valentich and plane, there’s not that much wriggle room. Now multiply this sort of unexplained case by the thousands worldwide, and you do have the ETH as a plausible hypothesis.

Interestingly, despite my asking for a copy of the Valentich ‘accident’ case report in an official capacity related to my employment at the time, the Department of Transport (Air Safety Investigations Branch) refused. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, that report has never been publicly released.

Further reading regarding Valentich:

Haines, Richard F.; Melbourne Episode: Case Study of A Missing Pilot; L.D.A. Press, Los Altos, California; 1987: [Dr. Haines was at the time a research scientist for NASA and an accredited air safety investigations officer.]

UFOs: Bits and Pieces: Valentich: The Missing Pilot

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, this time the curious case surrounding the disappearance of private pilot Frederick Valentich while reporting a UFO event.

One of many, many highly unexplained UFO cases, is the events surrounding Frederick Valentich on 21 October 1978. It’s more a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke, but smoke there certainly is, and lots of it.

In a nutshell, on the evening of that date, Mr. Valentich piloted a private plane from Melbourne, intended destination, King Island in Bass Strait. He took off only to shortly thereafter radio in that there was this UFO hovering over him. The UFO was spotted by several independent witnesses. While radioing his observations, all contact ceased; all communications abruptly ended. Mr. Valentich, plane and all, vanished without trace. An extensive air and sea search failed to find any sign of Mr. Valentich, or his plane. No oil slick, no floating wreckage, no body – nothing, zip, bugger-all. No trace has ever been found of pilot or plane – not then, not since, not ever. The weather had been perfect for night flying.

One obvious explanation was that Mr. Valentich staged his own disappearance, although friends and family could offer no reason why he would do so. Of course many people voluntarily disappear themselves for various reasons; many eventually are found, are caught or reappear voluntarily. But keep in mind; it wasn’t just Mr. Valentich who disappeared. One entire aircraft vanished as well, never to be seen again. Surely if Mr. Valentich wanted to ‘drop out’, there were easier and less conspicuous ways of doing so.  If he had deliberately gone walkabout, in these decades since of security cameras and computer facial software recognition technology, it would be hard to remain an unknown walkabout in any populated area.

Was suicide a motive? Again, no wreckage or body was ever found, and who would go to all the bother of reporting a non-existent UFO overhead – a non-existent UFO that happened to be independently reported by others.

And what of the plane since no wreckage was ever found floating on the surface of Bass Strait; washed up on beaches, or found on the ocean bottom – Bass Strait isn’t that deep.

It’s a mystery, and while it doesn’t prove aliens nicked off with Mr. Valentich and plane, there’s not that much wriggle room. Now multiply this sort of unexplained case by the thousands worldwide, and you do have the ETH as a plausible hypothesis.

Interestingly, despite my asking for a copy of the Valentich ‘accident’ case report in an official capacity related to my employment at the time, the Department of Transport (Air Safety Investigations Branch) refused. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, that report has never been publicly released.

Further reading regarding Valentich:

Haines, Richard F.; Melbourne Episode: Case Study of A Missing Pilot; L.D.A. Press, Los Altos, California; 1987: [Dr. Haines was at the time a research scientist for NASA and an accredited air safety investigations officer.]