1967 02 04 Saturday Review John Fuller

Magazine Overview

This issue of Saturday Review, dated February 4, 1967, features a significant debate concerning the UFO phenomenon, primarily between John Lear, the magazine's science editor, and John G. Fuller, author of the book "Incident at Exeter." The cover headline simply states "A COMMUNICATION CONCERNING THE UFOs." The issue is 70-73 pages long and is published in the USA.

The Fuller-Lear Debate

The core of the issue is a lengthy statement by John G. Fuller, responding to a series of articles by John Lear that discussed UFOs. Fuller expresses puzzlement and disagreement with Lear's conclusions, which he characterizes as "strange and hysterical intensity" and based on "obvious inaccuracies."

Fuller outlines the premise of his book, "Incident at Exeter," which is based on what he calls "irrefutable, objective facts." These include:

1. Thousands of competent, reliable reports of UFOs.
2. Reports from highly qualified technical and scientific people (airline pilots, Air Force pilots, weather observers, radar men, engineers, naval officers, scientists, citizens).
3. Reports from nearly every country.
4. The Air Force receives only a fraction of these reports; a Gallup poll suggests 5,000,000 people have seen UFOs, while the Air Force total is around 10,000.
5. Air Force investigations have been inadequate, often handled by desk sergeants and clerks.
6. Pentagon news releases based on Wright-Patterson assessments are often inaccurate or distortions of local assessments.
7. The Air Force acknowledged its inadequacies by agreeing to turn over full-scale investigation to the University of Colorado.

Fuller criticizes Lear for focusing on ancient texts like Ezekiel and mythology instead of contemporary facts and for ignoring firsthand accounts from reliable observers. He also takes issue with Lear's portrayal of his book, particularly his handling of the Barney and Betty Hill abduction case, accusing Lear of taking quotes out of context and making him appear irresponsible.

Fuller defends his research methodology, stating he spent as much time checking the character and quality of the person giving the report as on the story itself. He notes that he cross-examined over sixty people in the Exeter area, many of whom were sophisticated enough to distinguish between various aircraft, and found that only a fraction of these reports were officially submitted to the Air Force.

He highlights the disagreement between local Air Force men and official press releases, citing the Exeter police case where an official report found no probable cause, yet the Pentagon later issued a release attributing the sighting to "high-altitude Strategic Air Command exercise" and "twinkling stars and planets," later apologizing after being corrected on the timing.

Fuller also brings in the perspectives of other scientists. He mentions Dr. Edward Condon, who heads the University of Colorado's UFO study program and has urged people to report sightings. He particularly emphasizes the views of Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the Air Force's scientific advisor for eighteen years. Hynek, despite initial skepticism, now believes UFOs demand "serious and immediate scientific attention" and that the scientific fraternity must take cognizance of them, stating, "We can no longer dismiss the subject."

Hynek also points out common misconceptions that hinder scientific study, such as the belief that only "buffs" or unreliable people report UFOs, that scientifically trained people don't, that sightings are never close-range, or that they are generated by publicity. Hynek concludes that he cannot dismiss the UFO phenomenon and suffers from "temporal provincialism, a form of arrogance."

Dr. James E. McDonald, a senior physicist at the University of Arizona, is also cited. McDonald concludes that atmospheric, geophysical, astronomical, technological, and psychological hypotheses fail to explain hundreds of credible UFO reports. He suggests the "least unsatisfactory hypothesis" is that UFOs are of extraterrestrial nature and engaged in reconnaissance operations. He describes official Air Force investigations as "completely superficial" and their explanations "almost absurdly erroneous."

Fuller refutes Lear's claim that he (Fuller) theorized UFOs are interplanetary vehicles, stating he presented it as one theory among several and that the interplanetary hypothesis seemed to have the fewest holes. He also denies implying UFOs refueled from power lines, noting he only quoted speculation. He clarifies that his criticism of the Air Force was about their tendency to discount reports and discredit sincere people, not about "suppressing" knowledge.

Fuller also addresses Lear's accusation of misrepresenting the Barney and Betty Hill story, providing specific points from his book that Lear omitted, which contextualized the inclusion of the Hill story as a measure of regional interest and a potential Gallup-type poll on public interest. Fuller states his objective is to urge open-minded scientific inquiry into a phenomenon with enough evidence to warrant it.

John Lear's Reply

John Lear responds to Fuller's statement, clarifying that his editorial decision to discontinue Fuller's column was unrelated to the UFO controversy and did not reflect on Fuller's integrity or ability. Lear dismisses Fuller's criticisms as mistaken notions.

Lear defends his disagreement with Fuller's conclusions, noting that other reputable science writers, like Walter Sullivan of The New York Times, also found aspects of Fuller's book "preposterous."

He apologizes for failing to obtain explicit permission to publish the excerpt from "Incident at Exeter," explaining that the book publisher's representative had invited him to "do something with it." He acknowledges this was a lapse in diligence.

Lear asserts he has promoted scientific investigation of UFOs, citing an article he published in SR in 1959 by physicist Donald Robey. He also defends his use of quotations, stating that Fuller's book itself is largely composed of them. Lear suggests Fuller's annoyance stems from his not quoting him or other sources more extensively.

Lear questions Fuller's emphasis on the interplanetary hypothesis, pointing out that Fuller himself listed it as "still unprovable" and that it remains stronger than other theories only by a process of elimination. He also notes that descriptions of UFOs do not fit vehicles sent to the moon or Mars, but rather shapes efficient for atmospheric travel.

Lear directly refutes Fuller's claim that he attacked Fuller's credibility as a reporter, stating he published no such words. He then challenges Fuller's own account of why he included the Barney and Betty Hill story in "Incident at Exeter." Fuller stated he published it before researching it thoroughly but also insisted the book was scrupulously documented. Lear finds this contradictory.

Lear points out that after publishing the brief abduction story in "Incident at Exeter," Fuller expanded it into a full-length book, "The Interrupted Journey: Two Lost Hours 'Aboard a Flying Saucer,'" which Lear suggests indicates Fuller's own interest and belief.

Lear concludes by urging readers to compare his writings with Fuller's claims, read "Incident at Exeter" and its contents, and review the contract for the University of Colorado's independent UFO study to decide for themselves whether his behavior has been "strange or hysterical."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the debate over the interpretation of UFO evidence and the methodology for investigating it. John Fuller advocates for a scientific inquiry based on credible witness testimony and objective data, criticizing what he sees as the Air Force's dismissive attitude and Lear's biased reporting. John Lear, while acknowledging the existence of UFO reports, questions Fuller's conclusions, particularly the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and defends his own journalistic approach, emphasizing the need for rigorous documentation and questioning Fuller's narrative choices. The editorial stance of Saturday Review appears to be providing a platform for this debate, allowing both sides to present their arguments, though the framing suggests a leaning towards scientific rigor and open-minded investigation as championed by Fuller and scientists like Hynek and McDonald.