The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

# Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010007-4

Approved For Release the electrical generating capacity of the entire world.) If the $ 3 \times 1 0^{1 3} $ watts were radiated from a surface of 10 square meters (108 square feet), then its surface temperature, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, would be about $ 8 5, 0 0 0^{\circ} \mathrm{C} $ . Reflectors would be required to send the radiation backward, and if these absorbed even 1 percent of the radiation they would vaporize. This fundamental difficulty in interstellar flight was pointed out in 1952 by Shepherd (8, p. 408).

The possible use of interstellar matter for fuel was investigated by Pierce, and found not feasible (10).

We have assumed above that we could control mass-to-energy conversions involving fission, fusion, and annihilation with equipment having negligible mass. Even if this could be done, the basic problem of aligning the motions of the particles or the radiation would remain. At the speeds involved, the particles or the radiation would interact with the atoms of the enclosure; they would not bounce back as the combustion products in a chemical rocket do.

## Comparison between Theory and Reports

Published reports of unidentified flying objects usually describe objects seen in flight at a distance. Such sightings can give only angular diameters and angular speeds—not masses, linear

dimensions, or linear speeds. Similarly radar measurements cannot give masses or linear dimensions. For this reason, sightings of distant flying objects are useless for comparison with the laws of physics. I do not take issue with reports of sightings and will not try to explain them away. I agree that unidentified objects exist. The question remains, however, of whether objects seen were under extraterrestrial control.

If an extraterrestrial spacecraft is to land nondestructively and then lift off it must be able to develop a thrust slightly less than its weight on landing, and twice its weight for an acceleration of 1g of lift-off. This requirement forms a critical test for comparing UFO reports with physical theory.

The published reports generally describe objects about 5 to 100 meters in diameter, which land and lift off without the use of launching pads and gantries. No similarity to the giant undertaking of a launching from Cape Kennedy has ever been reported. If nuclear energy is used to generate thrust, then searing of the ground from temperatures of $ 8 5, 0 0 0^{\circ} \mathrm{C} $ should result, and nuclear decay products equivalent in quantity to those produced by the detonation of an atomic bomb should be detected. This has not happened. Hence, the published reports of landing and lift-offs of UFO's are not reports of spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrial beings, if the laws of physics are valid.

## Unpublished Reports

On 20 December 1966 I wrote to Hynek, asking him for reports in his files of landings and lift-offs. He wrote that he had no reliable reports concerning landings and lift-offs. Also, he told me in a telephone conversation that he had no records of cases wherein a reliable witness visited an extraterrestrial craft or talked with an occupant. Hynek's letter to me (11) states:

To sum up my answer to your request then: the cases I mentioned in Science do not deal with landings or takeoffs with the possible exception of the Socorro case which is useless from a quantitative standpoint. To obtain the information you require would be a several months' job in going through 10,000 or more cases. If the Air Force had accepted my recommendation a long time ago to have all this material in machine readable form, we could in a matter of a moment or two query the tapes and bring forth all this information for you in tabular form.