While there is nothing unusual about not being able to identify something, including flying objects, this term is used mainly to refer to alleged alien spacecraft and beings who travel in them from other planets and galaxies to planet Earth.
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, astronomer and foremost proponent of UFOlogy--he's the one who came up with the expression "close encounters of the third kind"--defines a UFO as:
[T]he reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible.[note 1]A rather unflattering picture of Hynek's critical thinking abilities is given by James Randi who claims that Hynek "has consistently refused to debate skeptic Philip J. Klass either on TV or in person to search out the truth about flying saucers. Lecturing without opposition, he is a compelling speaker. We may never discover how he would fare against an informed opponent."[note2] But let's forget about Hynek the person and consider his definition. Most of it seems pretty straightforward. People see things in the sky that baffle them and they can't explain them in any conventional way. These things fly and they're unidentified. But the part of the definition that bears scrutiny is the part that says everything remains a mystery after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of a common sense identification. Here's where the trouble begins: what Hynek considers all available evidence may be much less than what a skeptic would consider to be comprehensive.
The evidence appealed to by UFOlogists consists of (1) the testimony of people who claim to have seen aliens and/or alien spacecraft; (2) facts about the type of people who give the testimony; (3) the lack of contrary testimony or physical evidence that would either explain the sighting by conventional means (weather balloon, prank, meteor shower, reflection of light, etc.) or discredit the reliability of the eyewitness; and, (4) alleged weaknesses in the arguments of skeptics against the UFOlogists. The last item is completely irrelevant to the issue, yet it plays a disproportionately large role in UFOlogy.[note 3] The tactic of attacking an opponent's arguments or motives, instead of presenting positive evidence in defense of one's own view is a common one among arguers in general and, so, it should not be surprising to find it popular among defenders of the occult. The philosopher Paul Feyerabend has made a career out of attacking arguments against astrology, unconventional medicine and pseudoscience.[note 4] Of course, there is nothing wrong with attacking an opponent's argument and exposing weaknesses and faults thereby. But refutation is no substitute for support. It is simply faulty logic to assume that because I can show that your reasons for your belief are flawed I am therefore justified in concluding that my reasons for my belief are valid. My reasons may be just as flawed as yours, or even more flawed. I don't become beautiful by proving that you are ugly. I may be just as ugly as you are, or even uglier.
Another common tactic of arguers in general and certainly among occultists is the attempt to strengthen their position by claiming that the opposition can't disprove their point. With arguments for UFOs there are two distinct moves here. One is to claim that no logical explanation is possible because the UFOlogist or some scientist or pilot or Ph.D. can't think of one. The other is to point to the lack of contrary evidence: no counter testimony of other eyewitnesses, no proof that there weren't aliens or alien spacecraft. Here, too, there is a logical error made. The fact that some genius can't come up with an explanation for something is irrelevant to whether or not the correct explanation is visitors from outer space. The choice is not (A)we know this conventional explanation is correct OR (B)aliens have visited us. If we were justified in explaining everything that baffles us by saying `aliens did it', where would this logic lead us? Why aliens? Why not God, the Devil, St. Anthony, the Virgin Mary, Uri Geller, or Newt Gingrich?
If I am forced to choose between believing that an observation which can't be explained by conventional means is either proof of aliens or proof of human unreasonableness, I must choose the latter. It seems more reasonable to believe (A) that the only reason we can't explain these sightings by conventional means is because we don't have all the evidence, than to believe (B) that these sightings are probably due to alien visitations. If we had all the evidence, we'd probably be able to explain the sightings by some conventional means. The fact that I can't prove that Mr. and Mrs. Hill weren't abducted by aliens, doesn't support the hypothesis that they were so abducted. The fact that you can't prove that I am not an alien in no way supports the hypothesis that I probably am.
If a reasonable person is to believe in alien visitations it will have to be because of the testimony of the eyewitnesses, not because of the fact that they or some Ph.D. can't come up with a logical explanation or because of the weaknesses of the attacks by skeptics. The relevant evidence rests in what the eyewitnesses claim to have seen and who these people are.
Many UFOlogists think that because eyewitnesses such as Whitley Streiber (author of Communion) or Betty and Barney Hill[note 5] are not insane or evil, that they can't be deluded. I don't know why they believe this, since it seems pretty obvious that most sane, good, normal people are deluded about many things. While it is generally a reasonable thing to believe the testimony of sane, good, normal people with no ulterior motive when the issue is something which can be easily checked out, it does not follow that unless you can prove a person is crazy, evil or a fraud that you should trust their testimony about any claim whatsoever. When the type of claim being made involves the incredible, additional evidence besides eyewitness testimony is required. Would you convict a paraplegic of a crime on the basis of the testimony of ten pillars of the community who said they saw the defendant flying naked through the air with angel's wings and snatch the purse from a little old lady? I'd sooner believe that good people are doing an evil thing or that they were deluded than believe a paraplegic could sprout wings and fly.
What does a believer in visits from extraterrestrials say when presented with the U.S. Air Force report (Project Blue Book) which states that "after twenty-two years of investigation...none of the unidentified objects reported and evaluated posed a threat to our national security"? They say, Aha! That's just what they want you to believe! What does a believer in alien visitations say when presented with the Condon Report?[note 6] He appears before Congress and, as a scientist who thinks the government ought to be pouring more money into UFO research, he disclaims the report.
NBC produced two dozen programs called "Project UFO" and claimed it was based on Project Blue Book. However, unlike the Air Force, NBC suggested that there were substantiated cases of alien spacecraft sightings. To the true believer, that was because NBC is after the truth. To the skeptic, that was because NBC has no integrity and panders to the taste of the viewing audience. The programs, produced by Jack Webb of Dragnet fame, distorted and falsified information to make their accounts look more believable.
Most unidentified flying objects are eventually identified as astronomical events (comets, meteors, etc.), aircraft, satellites, weather balloons or as hoaxes. In studies done by the Air Force, less than 2% of UFO sightings remain unidentifiable. I think it is more probable that with more information those 2% would be identified as meteors, aircraft, etc. than that they are alien spacecraft.
There are two reasons that can account for why so many scientists and other intelligent people believe the claims of those who claim to have seen aliens or their spacecraft. On the one hand the observers are often believable subjects and on the other hand no logical explanation seems plausible. The subjects are believable because they are average, decent folk, with no desire for fame or fortune or they are not average people at all, but pilots or scientists with no desire for fame or fortune. For some reason it is often thought by intelligent people that only morons are deceived or deluded and that if people's motives can be trusted then their testimony can be trusted. While it is true that we are justified in being skeptical of a person's testimony if they have something to gain by the testimony (such as fame or fortune), it is not true that we should trust any testimony given by a person who has nothing to gain by giving the testimony. An incompetent observer, a drunk or drugged observer, a mistaken observer, a deluded observer should not be trusted, even if they are as pure as the mountain springs once were. The fact that a person is kind and decent and has nothing to gain by lying does not make them immune to error in the interpretation of their perceptions.
The reason no logical explanation seems credible is probably because those making and hearing the reports either don't want to hear a logical explanation or they make little or no effort to find one. In any case, the fact that some pilots or scientists claim they can't think of any logical explanations for some perceptual observations is hardly proof that they've observed alien spacecraft.
UFOlogy is the mythology of the space age. Rather than angels...we now have...extraterrestrials. It is the product of the creative imagination. It serves a poetic and existential function. It seeks to give man deeper roots and bearings in the universe. It is an expression of our hunger for mystery...our hope for transcendental meaning. The gods of Mt. Olympus have been transformed into space voyagers, transporting us by our dreams to other realms--Paul Kurtz
See related entries on alien abductions, cattle mutilations, crop circles, flying saucers, and science fiction.
suggested reading
"The Quest for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" by Carl Sagan
Scientific skepticism, UFOs and the flying saucer myth
The Internet Unidentified Flying Objects Group [IUFOG] Hyperlinks Page
Kjetil Kjernmos on (mostly) UFO's
-----. Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects Conducted by the University of Colorado under Contract to the United States Air Force (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1969).
-----Paranormal Phenomena (San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1991), from the Opposing Viewpoints Series, chapter 2, Are UFOs Real?
-----UFO's: A Scientific Debate, ed. Carl Sagan and Thornton Page (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 1972).
Hynek, J. Allen and Jacques Vallee. The Edge of Reality: a Progress Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Chicago: Regnery, 1975).
Klass, Philip J. UFO-Abductions : a Dangerous Game (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1988).
Klass, Philip J. UFOs: the Public Deceived (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1983).
Kurtz, Paul. The Transcendental Temptation: a Critique of Religion and the Paranormal (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1986).
Randi, James. Flim-Flam (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books,1982), ch. 4.
Rutkowski, Chris A. The Tectonic Strain Theory of UFO's (among other things).
Sagan, Carl. Broca's Brain (New York: Random House, 1979), ch 5. "NightWalkers and Mystery Mongers: Sense and Nonsense at the Edge of Science".
Sagan, Carl. The Cosmic Connection (New York: Doubleday, 1973).
Wells, Gary L. and Elizabeth F. Loftus, editors, Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
Notes