UFOs and Related Subjects (Lynn Catoe, 1969)

Schopfer, Siegfried. Fliegende Untertassen: ja oder nein? Stuttgart, Walter
Hadecke Verlag, 1955. 32 p.
lMdence rel2.ting to UFOs is examined and author concludes that although
nallucinations, images, and fantasies relating to the pheilomenon may be
real, there is no such thing as a flying saucer.
Shalett, Sidney. What you can believe about flying saucers. Saturday evening
post, v. 221, May 7, 1949: 36, 184··186.
Applies "logical" explanations to reported facts of UFO sightings and con-
cludes they arc results of tricks played hy sun, stars, and senses.
Sharp, Peter F. An appraisal of the present UFO position. Flying saucer
review, v. 7, 1961: 19-22.
Analysis of current hypotheses which attempt to explain UFO phenomena.
Slim chance for saucer sightings. Science digest, v. 43, Feb. 1958: 60.
USAF says there are less than two chances in 100 that UFO sightings cannot
be identified as familiar objects, reports Chemical and Engineering News.
The six categories into which USAF places UFOs are: balloons, aircraft,
astronomical, other (i.e., .reflections, searchlight3, birds, clouds, hoaxes,
ice crystals, fireballs), insufficient data, and unknowns.
Some "saucers'' may be electrical. New scientist, v. 31, Sept. 1, 1966: 463.
Discussion of Philip J. Klass' theory that corona discharges, in the shape
of balls of luminous gas, occur when there are salt deposits on very high
voltage transmission lines and account for many UFOs.
Something in the air. Time, v. 60, Aug. 11, 1952: 58.
Radar impulses bouncing off a temperature inversion are suggested as the
explanation for mysterious radar ''blips" believed by some to be caused by
flying saucers over the Capitol in Washington, D.C., July 20-21, 1952.
Siace visitors: examples of mysterious and well-authenticated unidentified
flying objects, by "Theorist." Practic3.l mechanics, v. 24, Dec. 1956:
138-141.
Sprinkle, R. Leo. Patterns of UFO reports. Laramie, Wyoming, The Author,
1967. 15 p.
126