1971 12 00 Origins of Life - Vol 3 No 2 - Wichman

Magazine Overview

This document is a scientific paper titled "A SCIENTIST IN THE COCKPIT: THE CASE HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF A UFO SIGHTING" by Harvey Wichman, affiliated with California State College. It was received on July 6, 1971, and published in Space Life Sciences 3 (1971), pages 165-170, copyrighted by D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Abstract

The paper details a UFO sighting that occurred during a night instrument training flight where the author served as the flight instructor. The unidentified flying object (UFO) appeared as a bright light approaching on a collision course at high speed, followed by rapid deceleration, hovering, and then rapid acceleration away. This pattern of apparent reconnoitering activity was repeated approximately ten times before the object disappeared. The author, a scientist, describes his struggle to explain the phenomenon using scientific principles, detailing the tentative explanation he developed and how he tested it.

Flight Instructor's Subjective Report

The incident took place on the night of May 28, 1968, during a night cross-country instrument training flight under actual instrument conditions. The aircraft was a Cessna 150 training plane, and the student held a commercial pilot's license. The flight departed Ontario International Airport in Southern California around 7:00 p.m. and landed at Lindberg Field, San Diego, about an hour later. The weather was favorable, with a ceiling of about 500 ft and visibility of two miles, accompanied by light rain and drizzle. A well-defined coastal cloud layer was present at about 2000 ft. The trip to San Diego was routine. After spending an hour on the ground discussing the flight and planning the return, they departed Lindberg Field at 9:00 p.m. The departure and transition to the enroute segment were uneventful, but the subsequent events were far from ordinary.

During the flight, after entering the cloud layer, the author instructed the student to keep the cabin lights on for chart reading. The takeoff was towards the west, over the ocean. Shortly after lift-off, they were instructed to contact Departure Control, which provided radar identification and cleared them to proceed to the San Diego VOR. The author's role was to observe the student's flying, monitor radio communications, and anticipate upcoming tasks. The air was calm, and there was no sense of movement. Suddenly, they broke out of the cloud layer, and the author noticed a bright white light slightly above and to the left. Initially, he thought it was another plane with its landing light on. However, the light rapidly approached, and it became clear it was coming directly towards them at high speed. It stopped about three to five miles away and hovered. The author, alarmed by the speed, turned off the cabin light, stating he had traffic to watch. He was visibly scared, noting he was soaked with sweat. He then observed the light hovering ahead, recalling a past experience where a plane's tail light appeared stationary due to relative velocities. To his surprise, the light then accelerated away at an incredible speed, estimated at thousands of miles per hour, moving up the coast until it stopped and hovered off the coast of Los Angeles. After a moment, it returned directly towards them. The author became angry at the radar controller for not warning them. He turned on the landing lights to signal their position, and the object came to an incredible halt, seemingly waiting. As the author reached for the microphone to call radar, the object accelerated up the coast again at remarkable speed. At this point, the author experienced a strange sensation, trembling, with wet hands, and a growing sense of dread. He recognized the feeling of seeing something not of this world. Despite his 21 years of flying experience and a history of remaining calm in emergencies, he felt a profound sense of helplessness.

The Hypothesis

Wichman then describes his attempt to regain rationality, adopting a third-person perspective and reminding himself that he, as a scientist, does not believe in flying saucers and that the phenomenon must be an illusion. He initially compared it to an illusion caused by car headlights in poor weather. He focused on his instruments, which all appeared normal. He then looked up and saw the object approaching again. This led to a fear of hallucination or losing touch with reality. He forced himself to seek a rational explanation, recalling his scientific training. He hypothesized that the airplane itself was oscillating, causing the illusion. By observing the artificial horizon, he noticed a slow, gradual shift up and down of the airplane's reference over the horizon line, a subtle oscillation that was almost imperceptible from a normal distance. He realized this oscillation, occurring along the slope of the climb gradient, could explain the perceived motion of the light. As the plane's nose moved up, the light seemed to retreat, and as the nose moved down, the light seemed to approach. He noted that his negative emotional responses waned, replaced by excitement. He attempted to break the illusion by consciously recognizing the light as a planet (suspected to be Jupiter) and trying to see it as stationary among the stars, but these attempts failed. The illusion persisted until the aircraft reached cruising altitude, leveled out, and accelerated, at which point the oscillation ceased, and the illusion disappeared.

Theoretical Considerations

The author posits that the visual experience was a result of the airplane oscillating about its longitudinal axis. He suggests that a more primitive explanation lies in how creatures process information rather than attributing intention to an object. The light source was almost certainly the planet Jupiter. His post-flight estimate of Jupiter's position (bearing 300° magnetic, elevation 30° from San Diego) was close to its actual position (277° magnetic, 37° elevation), within acceptable error limits. The brightness of Jupiter, with an apparent diameter varying between 32 and 50 seconds of arc, can make it appear very bright, significantly brighter than stars like Alpha Canis Major.

Two phenomena are considered as potential prototypes for explaining the event: the Moon illusion and the autokinetic effect. The Moon illusion, where the Moon appears larger at the horizon, is discussed in relation to Adaptation-Level (A-L) theory, suggesting the horizon acts as a reference. However, the observed phenomenon involved the light appearing to recede as the effective horizon and light converged, contrary to the typical response of seeing something approaching if it appears larger. Earlier explanations of the Moon illusion, like those by Kaufman and Rock, and Boring and Holway, are mentioned, with the latter suggesting head and eye tilt might be involved.

The autokinetic effect, where a stationary point of light in darkness appears to move, is also discussed. Experiments suggest this effect arises from reduced retinal stimulation to a point source and disappears with visual diversity. The author notes that even after dark adaptation revealed a star field, the illusion persisted. Edwards' suggestion that the autokinetic effect might be due to stimulus size, providing frames of reference for perceived motion, is considered. The author also explores how a pilot's perception of an object moving away might be influenced by the aircraft's movement and the otolith organ's inability to detect slow tilts (less than two degrees per second). This could lead to the light being perceived as moving away or downwards, rather than upwards, as distant objects rarely move significantly up or down.

The Experimental Plan

The UFO phenomenon continues to generate significant public and professional interest. The author believes that solving even one sighting, through modest analysis, is worthwhile. The cockpit analysis suggests challenging theoretical questions about human perceptual information processing that are best answered in a laboratory. Attempts to replicate the experience in an airplane have failed due to the difficulty of manually producing the necessary low-amplitude, slow-wave oscillations. Preparations are underway to develop laboratory experiments that can safely control variables such as light source intensity and apparent diameter, visual field complexity, rate and extent of oscillatory movements, psychological set, effective horizon position, and field of view framing. The plan involves using a mechanized chair to reproduce the oscillation profile and attach horizon indicators and a reference frame similar to a windshield. Subject responses will be non-verbal, such as moving a lever to match perceived stimulus motion. The research aims to identify the necessary information input parameters that reproduce the illusion and specify exact hypotheses for testing.

References

The paper includes a list of references, citing works by Boring, Dember, Edwards, Kaufman, Rock, Restle, and Sagan, related to perception, psychology, and UFO phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the scientific investigation of anomalous aerial phenomena, specifically a UFO sighting. The editorial stance, as presented by the author, is one of rational inquiry, attempting to explain extraordinary observations through established scientific principles and psychological theories of perception. The paper emphasizes the importance of rigorous analysis and the potential for laboratory research to unravel complex perceptual illusions. There is a clear rejection of simplistic or supernatural explanations in favor of a methodical, evidence-based approach.