7 minute read
8.1 Sturrock/Rockefeller Report on Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
8.0 SUMMARY REVIEW OF RECENT PRIVATE STUDIES
The summaries of two recent reports are included here as examples of serious thoughtful studies of the UFO phenomena. The first is the Sturrock/Rockefeller Report done in the United States and published in 1998. The second is the COMETA report done in France and published in 1999.
Advertisement
In 1997, a workshop was organized by Dr. Peter Sturrock and the Society of Scientific Exploration and funded by Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller to review physical evidence purported to be associated with UFO events. This was the first major review of these issues by the scientific community in nearly 3 decades and the results were reported in the national media. The abstract of the workshop proceedings (which was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration113) is reprinted below. This is followed by the Stanford University News Service Press release about the workshop proceedings. The full report of the proceedings is available from the Journal of Scientific Exploration and was later expanded in a book by Dr. Peter Sturrock in 1999114 .
Abstract:
Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 – October 4, 1997
P. A. Sturrock, et al., Varian 302G, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060
The purpose of this four-day workshop was to review purported physical evidence associated with UFO reports, with a view to assessing whether the further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is likely to help solve the UFO problem, namely the determination of the cause or causes of these reports.
Seven UFO investigators presented a variety of physical evidence that they claimed was associated with UFO reports: photographic evidence; luminosity estimates; radar evidence; interference with automobile functioning; interference with aircraft equipment; apparent gravitational or inertial effects; ground traces; injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on witnesses; and analysis of debris. There was in addition a presentation of investigations into recurrent phenomena that occur in the Hessdalen Valley in Norway.
A review panel was composed of nine scientists of diverse expertise and interests. The panel offered comments and criticisms concerning the investigations that were presented, and also prepared a summary of their overall response, with the following key elements:
113 Sturrock, P. A. et al. (25 authors). 1998. Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 – October 4, 1997. Journal of Scientific Exploration 12 (2): 179-229. Web site at: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html 114 Sturrock, Peter. A. The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence. Warner Books, 1999. 416 pp.
Concerning the case material presented by the investigators, the panel concluded that a few reported incidents may have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity, but there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence.
The panel nevertheless concluded that it would be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations. However, to be credible, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses.
The best prospect for achieving a meaningful evaluation of relevant hypotheses is likely to come from the examination of physical evidence.
The chances of a significant advance are considered to be greater now than at the time of the Colorado Project that led to the Condon Report thirty years ago, because of advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the example of a modest but effective UFO research project provided by the French space agency CNES.
Stanford University News Service News Release, 6/22/98
Scientific panel concludes some UFO evidence worthy of study
In the first independent review of UFO phenomena since 1970, a panel of scientists has concluded that some sightings are accompanied by physical evidence that deserves scientific study. But the panel was not convinced that any of this evidence points to a violation of known natural laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.
The review was organized and directed by Peter Sturrock, professor of applied physics at Stanford University, and supported administratively by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which provides a forum for research into unexplained phenomena. The international review panel of nine physical scientists responded to presentations by eight investigators of UFO reports, who were asked to present their strongest data. Von R. Eshleman, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford, co-chaired the panel.
Although UFO reports date back 50 years, the information gathered does not prove that either unknown physical processes or alien technologies are implicated. But it does include a sufficient number of intriguing and inexplicable observations, the panel concluded. “It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science.” To be credible to the scientific community “such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses” that has so far been lacking, it added.
This conclusion differs from that reached by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project, in his 1968 UFO report. He concluded that “further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.” It is very similar, however, to the conclusion reached by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Kuettner Report issued two years later, which advocated “a continuing, moderate-level [research]
effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means and on high-quality scientific analysis.”
In the current study, the scientific panel focused on incidents involving some form of physical evidence, including photographic evidence, radar evidence, vehicle interference, interference with aircraft equipment, apparent gravitational or inertial effects, ground traces, injuries to vegetation, physiological effects on witnesses, and debris. Of particular concern are reports that UFO encounters may be hazardous to people’s health. Some witnesses have reportedly suffered radiation-type injuries. These reports led the panel to draw the attention of the medical community to the possible health risks involved.
The scientists found that some of the reported incidents may have been caused by rare natural phenomena, such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms or radar ducting (the trapping and conducting of radar waves by atmospheric channels). However, the panel found that some of the phenomena related to UFOs are not easy to explain in this fashion.
Further analysis of the evidence presented to the panel is unlikely to shed added light on the causes underlying the reports, the scientists said. Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved. But new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed, could yield useful information and advance our understanding of the UFO problem, the panel said.
The reviewers also made the following observations:
The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple, universal answer. Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying them. Studies should concentrate on cases that include as much independent physical evidence as possible. Continuing contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive. Institutional support for research in this area is desirable.
The review panel consisted of Von Eshleman; Thomas Holzer, High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colo.; Randy Jokipii, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson; Francois Louange, managing director of Fleximage, Paris, France; H. J. Melosh, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson; James J. Papike, professor of Earth and planetary sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; Guenther Reitz, German Aerospace Center, Institute for Aerospace Medicine, Cologne, Germany; Charles Tolbert, professor of astronomy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; and Bernard Veyret, Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory, University of Bordeaux, France. Eshleman and Holzer served as co-chairs of the panel.
The UFO investigators who presented evidence were Richard Haines, Los Altos, Calif.; Illobrand von Ludwiger, Germany; Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago; John Schuessler, Houston; Erling Strand, Ostfold College, Skjeberg, Norway; Michael Swords, professor of natural science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo; Jacques Vallee, San Francisco; and Jean-Jacques Velasco, CNES, Toulouse, France.
The study was initiated by Laurance S. Rockefeller and supported financially by the LSR Fund.
