1967 12 00 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Vol 23 No 10 - Munday

Magazine Overview

Title: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Issue: Vol. 23, No. 10
Date: December 1967
Price: 50 Cents
Publisher: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (with Routledge Taylor & Francis Group noted as a publisher/distributor).
Country of Publication: United States
Original Language: English
ISSN: 0096-3402 (Print), 1938-3282 (Online)

Articles

On The UFOs

This section features a critical discussion of UFO reports and their interpretation, primarily initiated by a critique of previous articles by Dr. Margolis and Dr. Sagan in the June issue.

John C. Munday Jr. challenges the assertion that there is a complete lack of credible evidence for the extraterrestrial hypothesis, stating this is an opinion, not a fact, and that growing numbers of scientists are interested in UFOs precisely because they believe such evidence exists.

Munday Jr. refutes Dr. Sagan's claim that professional astronomers have never made visual and photographic observations of UFOs. He cites the Flying Saucer Review (January-February 1967) which published a photograph of UFOs silhouetted against the moon, taken on December 1, 1965, at the Adhara Observatory in Argentina. He also references NICAP's (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) publication, The UFO Evidence (1964), which lists nine professional astronomers with UFO reports on file. Furthermore, he mentions E. J. Ruppelt, former head of the United States Air Force Project Blue Book, who in his book 'The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects' stated that in 1952, 45 astronomical authorities were informally consulted, and five of them had seen UFOs.

Another piece of evidence cited is a photograph from the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) Bulletin (November-December 1966) showing puzzling curved and dashed trails against a star background, taken by photographer-astronomer John T. Hopf on December 13, 1966.

Munday Jr. also scrutinizes Dr. Sagan's claim about the Central Intelligence Agency's Robertson Panel. He argues that Sagan's simplification of the panel's conclusion—that UFOs were "all probably natural phenomena wrongly interpreted"—distorts the findings. Ruppelt's account (pages 275-296) indicates the panel heard evidence for five days and wrote a conclusion in two, which Munday Jr. finds insufficient for a thorough study, especially when contrasted with the fifteen months allocated to the University of Colorado project and its request for an additional five months.

Ruppelt's analysis of Project Blue Book findings from 1947-1952 revealed that out of 1,593 reports, 27% were classified as "unknowns." Associates of Ruppelt presented a special analysis of rigorously investigated reports, concluding that some UFO motions indicated intelligent control.

The article details the Robertson Panel's review of the Tremonton, Utah, motion picture films from July 1952. An analysis by the Navy Photo Interpretation Laboratory (PIL) concluded the objects were "self-luminous" and not birds, balloons, or aircraft. The Air Force military photo laboratory at Wright Field also reported they did not know what the objects were but that they were not airplanes or balloons. However, the Robertson Panel rejected the PIL analysis, partly due to concerns about their methodology. The panel did not fully consider the subjective impressions of the photographer who took the films, who described the objects as looking like "two pie pans, one inverted on the top of the other."

Despite these points, the Robertson Panel recommended expanding Project Blue Book and informing the public about UFO investigations, while cautioning against accepting the extraterrestrial hypothesis due to circumstantial evidence.

Munday Jr. also addresses Dr. Sagan's point about radar sightings being explained as weather phenomena, emphasizing that many radar sightings cannot be so explained. He recalls the unexplained simultaneous radar and visual sightings near Washington, D.C., in July 1952, where F-94 jet interceptors were unable to achieve sustained lock-ons.

He discusses Dr. Markowitz's argument that physical laws impose stringent limitations on extraterrestrial craft, making interstellar travel unlikely. Munday Jr. cautions against dismissing possibilities based on current understanding of physics, drawing a parallel to the historical resistance to the idea of meteorites falling from the sky.

Munday Jr. concludes that understanding UFOs requires independent and exhaustive studies, considering the accumulation of unexplained reports, the increase in sightings, and reports of ground sightings and occupants.

Dr. James McDonald is mentioned as having stated in October 1966 that the CIA was concerned about military intelligence channels being clogged by UFO reports and had requested that military authorities debunk UFO reports and discourage public interest, a request that apparently thwarted the Robertson Panel's recommendations.

A Reconsideration of the Criteria for Deterrence

John Barton, acting head of the Operational Analysis Division at Sylvania Electronic Systems-Western Operation, addresses the complexities of deterrence in the context of the Cold War.

Barton outlines several key questions affecting the future structure of deterrence, including the decision to deploy ballistic missile defense, the trade-off between assured destruction and damage limitation, and the strategic implications of missile targeting. He also notes the challenges of extending deterrence to Asia and controlling the deterrence structure in Europe.

The article highlights that deterrence, defined as the ability to inflict unacceptable destruction on an opponent, has largely worked, evidenced by the "strategic peace" between the United States and the USSR. However, Barton warns of the dangers of a deterrence-based arms race that proceeds dynamically and becomes unresponsive to international political realities.

He raises profound moral questions, such as the failure of deterrence if it is ever used, and the ethical dilemma of retaliation. The article also touches upon the risks of accidental war and the irrationality of potential aggressors.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists consistently focuses on the intersection of science, technology, and public affairs. In this issue, the recurring themes are the critical examination of scientific claims, the importance of rigorous investigation into unexplained phenomena (specifically UFOs), and the strategic considerations of international security and deterrence.

The editorial stance, as evidenced by the articles, encourages a rational, evidence-based approach to complex issues. While acknowledging the scientific community's historical skepticism, the authors advocate for open-mindedness and thorough investigation, particularly concerning the UFO phenomenon. The article on deterrence reflects a concern for maintaining global stability through strategic thinking, while also acknowledging the inherent risks and moral complexities involved.