Post
by parson » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:37 pm
4. If UFOs are extraterrestrial aircraft, there should be
an undisputed photograph of one by now.
Anything can be disputed. To begin a dispute, all one
needs to do is open one's mouth and utter a few words.
The mere existence of a dispute, therefore, does not in itself
deny the reality of a thing. The dispute simply means that
someone has chosen to quarrel, whether for good reasons
or bad.
It is true, however, that researchers do face a paucity of
decent UFO photographs. Available UFO snapshots tend
to be of two varieties: either fuzzy and inconclusive (the
picture could be of just about anything), or fraudulent.
When a sharp, clear picture of a flying saucer does surface,
it often proves to be a hoax. This happens so often that
a researcher can almost count on a "good" flying saucer
photograph eventually proving "bad." This is especially true
today when technical advances have made some forms of
trick photography nearly undetectable.
This still leaves the question: why are there so few con-
clusive photographs available?
As noted earlier, apparently genuine extraterrestrial air-
craft account for only a small percentage of the total number
of UFOs reported. Most of those aircraft are seen at night.
The majority of "close encounters" (human encounters with
the spacecraft occupants) take place in rural non-recreational
areas where there are very few people carrying cameras. The
already poor chances of getting a good snapshot under those
conditions are worsened by the fact that the vast majority
of camera owners, including dedicated photo buffs, do not
always carry their cameras with them. At any given moment,
surely fewer than one person in every ten thousand is carry-
ing a camera. UFOs do not compensate for this by making
regular scheduled appearances over crowded vacation spots
where most clicking cameras would be. Given these factors,
we can expect that good genuine photos of extraterrestrial
aircraft would be exceedingly rare commodities. Remember
also that camera ownership has been widespread for only a
short period of time: several decades.
This is not to say that clear photos of apparently genuine
alien aircraft do not exist. A few do, and they can be found
in various books written by responsible UFO researchers.*
5. Eyewitness testimony in UFO cases is inherently unre-
liable. Such testimony is therefore insufficient evidence of
extraterrestrial visitation.
Perhaps the most influential UFO critic as of this writing
is Philip Klass, who has been aptly dubbed the "Sherlock
Holmes of UFOlogy" for his exhaustive investigations. His
book, UFOs Explained, won the Aviation/Space Writers
award for the best book on space in 1974. In that award-
winning book, Mr. Klass developed several principles. The
first was:
UFOlogical Principle #1: Basically honest and intel-
ligent persons who are suddenly exposed to a brief,
unexpected event, especially one that involves an unfa-
miliar object, may be grossly inaccurate in trying to
describe precisely what they have seen.8
This principle is sometimes true. It was demonstrated by a
U.S. government-sponsored UFO study conducted between
1966 and 1968 under the direction of Edward U. Condon.
Its published findings, which are usually called the "Condon
Report," are a milestone in UFO literature.
In one chapter of the Condon Report, the committee
discusses what occurred after a Russian spacecraft, Zond
IV, went awry and began its re-entry into Earth's atmosphere
on March 3, 1968. As the craft fell through the atmosphere
and burned, it created a spectacular display for people on
the ground. Eyewitnesses perceived the flaming debris as
a majestic procession of fiery objects leaving behind a
golden orange tail. Because of the objects' great height,
it was impossible to make out from the ground what the
broken pieces actually were. It was only possible to see
them as brilliant and separate points of light. The Zond
IV debris created an effect identical to that of a brilliant
meteor display.
