The natural philosophy of flying saucers

Magazine Overview

This document is a scanned page from the journal 'Physics Bulletin', Volume 19, Issue 19, published in 1968. The article featured is titled 'The natural philosophy of flying saucers' by R. V. Jones. The content has been downloaded from IOPscience and includes download details such as IP address and download time.

The natural philosophy of flying saucers

The article, authored by R. V. Jones, a distinguished physicist and intelligence officer, critically examines the phenomenon of 'flying saucers' through a lens of natural philosophy and scientific skepticism. Jones begins by drawing a parallel to historical disbelief in natural phenomena, citing the example of Thomas Jefferson's skepticism towards meteorites and Chladni's eventual success in convincing the French Academy of their reality.

Jones shares his experience as an Intelligence Officer, where he often had to investigate conflicting evidence and sometimes found that established 'science' was incorrect. He notes that the phrase 'flying saucers' dates from June 1947, but similar apparitions have been reported for centuries, referencing historical accounts from Bede and an 11th/12th-century monastery.

He recounts several historical incidents that were attributed to unusual aerial objects:

• 1882 Sighting: E. W. Maunder of the Royal Observatory observed an object described as 'spindle shaped' or 'like a torpedo', which was also seen by the spectroscopist Zeeman. While Maunder considered it different from auroral phenomena, Jones suggests it was likely an unusual auroral display, coinciding with a magnetic storm and sunspots.
• 1897 Scare: A 'winged cigar' with a bright light was reported over Oakland, California, leading to similar sightings across the US. While some were hoaxes, the origin of the initial incident remained obscure.
• 1925 Oxted Sighting: Jones recalls a bright light reported nightly, which turned out to be Venus, highlighting how celestial bodies can be mistaken for unusual objects.
• 1940-1941 Aircraft Alarm: An antiaircraft battery reported a new high-flying German aircraft, but investigations revealed they had misidentified Venus due to its brightness and perceived height.

Jones emphasizes the importance of considering the nature of evidence, particularly during wartime when tensions can lead to apparitions. He shares an anecdote about a 'Russian troop' legend spread by a miscommunicated telegram, illustrating how rumors can start.

He discusses his own wartime experiences, including seeing what he initially thought was a flying saucer, which turned out to be an escaped balloon. He also mentions the intelligence concern that the Germans might have developed a high-flying aircraft (Ju 86P) for reconnaissance, a theory later doubted due to a lack of photographic evidence.

Jones addresses the 'Fifth Columnist' scares of 1940, where flares were mistaken for signals to guide bombers, and the phenomenon of 'ring angels' observed on radar screens, attributed to starlings.

He delves into the psychological susceptibility of aircrew to apparitions, citing a legend about German anti-aircraft shells radiating venereal disease. He also discusses the theory that German searchlights were disabled by bomber radar identification devices, a belief that caused harm until it was disproven.

The Swedish Scare of 1946: Jones details his involvement in investigating a wave of sightings in Sweden, which gained volume due to apprehension about Russian intentions. While some attributed these to Russian flying bombs, Jones, using his experience with German flying bombs, argued that the reliability required for such a feat was unlikely. He proposed that the sightings were likely a large, bright meteor appearing over the Gulf of Finland, with individual reports reflecting observational errors.

The Westerham Incident: Jones recounts a case where Air Ministry intelligence officers were sent to investigate a supposed Russian flying bomb crash. The investigation led them on a wild goose chase, ultimately revealing the 'incident' was a mistaken identity of a farmer named Bunyan, not Gunyon, and the 'missile' was likely a misidentified object.

Kenneth Arnold's 1947 Sighting: This event is presented as the trigger for the secondary American scare. Arnold's sighting of 'saucer-like things' near Mt Ranier is discussed, with Menzel suggesting it could have been snow swirling off peaks or clouds.

Official Investigations: Jones notes the establishment of official US investigations like 'Project Saucer', 'Project Grudge', and 'Project Bluebook', and the 1953 Robertson Panel, which concluded there was no evidence of 'artefacts of a hostile foreign power' and recommended 'debunking'. He defends the integrity of the Robertson Panel members, whom he knew personally.

Unexplained Residue: Jones acknowledges that a small percentage of reports remain unexplained. He cites figures from the UK Ministry of Defence (70 out of 625) and Project Bluebook (237 out of 5569) to illustrate this. He questions whether this residue is sufficient to indicate a gap in knowledge of natural phenomena or an extraterrestrial invasion.

Applying Occam's Razor: Jones stresses the importance of applying Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation. He illustrates its application with his own experience in deducing the propulsion of German flying bombs, where a simpler hypothesis initially seemed correct but was ultimately proven wrong by more complex evidence. He warns against clinging to simple explanations if subsequent observations contradict them.

Conclusion: Jones concludes that, based on the evidence and applying Occam's Razor, the balance is heavily against flying saucers being intelligently controlled vehicles. He acknowledges the difficulty of proving a negative case and the potential for believers to conjure new hypotheses. He suggests that if known natural phenomena are insufficient, an unrecognized natural phenomenon is a more plausible alternative than extraterrestrial craft. He reiterates his skepticism, stating that little short of a tangible relic would dispel it.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article are scientific skepticism, critical analysis of evidence, the role of eyewitness testimony, the influence of psychological factors and hoaxes, and the application of scientific principles like Occam's Razor to unexplained phenomena. The editorial stance is one of rigorous scientific inquiry, advocating for evidence-based conclusions and caution against premature acceptance of extraordinary claims. The author, R. V. Jones, clearly favors natural explanations and misidentifications over extraterrestrial hypotheses for flying saucer sightings.