*****************************************************************
I M P O R T A N T N O T I C E
concerning the following text file *****************************************************************
ParaNet makes no endorsement of this material and the views
expressed herein are not necessarily the views of ParaNet. This
information is provided as a public service only.

This file is SHARETEXT material. This means that you are free to
distribute it to anyone you like, as long as it is not used for
commercial purposes, you do not charge for it, you do not remove
this header, or change the contents in anyway. Additionally, we
ask that you contribute to ParaNet, if possible, to assure a
continuation of this valuable, educational SHARETEXT service.
The suggested contribution is $75.00 and entitles you to full
access to our comprehensive library and our network of electronic
affiliates all over the world. Other services are available.
Mail your contribution to:

ParaNet Information Service
P.O. Box 172
Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0172

ParaNet(sm): Freedom of Information for a better world!

(C) 1991 ParaNet(sm) Information Service. All Rights Reserved. ****************************************************************
ParaNet File Number: 00047

REPORT ON A SURVEY OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY CONCERNING THE UFO PHENOMENON

SUMMARY


Refereed journals, to which scientists turn for their reliable
information, carry virtually no information on the UFO problem. Does
this imply that scientists have no views and no thoughts on the
subject, or that all scientists consider it insignificant? Does it
imply that scientists have no reports to submit comparable with UFO
reports published in newspapers and popular books? The purpose of this
survey is to answer these questions.

Of 2,611 questionnaires mailed to members of the American Astronomical
Society, 1,356 were returned, 34 anonymously. Only two members offered
to waive anonymity. These facts and many comments confirm that the UFO
problem is a sensitive issue for most scientists. Nevertheless, only a
few (13) respondents made critical remarks about the subject or the
survey; 50 made encouraging statements, 34 offered to help, and 7
indicated that they are actively studying the problem.

Each respondent was asked to state his opinion on whether the UFO
problem deserves scientific study: 23% replied "certainly", 30%
"probably", 27% "possibly", 17% "probably not", and 3% "certainly not",
which represents a positive attitude among 53% of the respondents, as
against a negative attitude among 20%. Analysis of the returns shows
that older scientists are markedly more negative to the problem than
are younger scientists. One also finds that opinions correlate strongly
with time spent reading about the subject. The fraction of respondents
who think that the subject certainly or probably deserves scientific
study rises from 29%, among those who have spent less than one hour, to
68% among those who have spent more than 365 hours in such reading. It
appears that popular books and publications by established scientists
exert a positive influence on scientists' opinions, whereas newspaper
and magazine articles exert negligible influence.

Respondents were asked to express their views on possible causes of UFO
reports by assigning "prior probabilities" to four "conventional"
causes [(a) a hoax, (b) a familiar phenomenon or device, (c) an
unfamiliar natural phenomenon, and (d) an unfamiliar terrestrial
device] and four "unconventional" causes [(e) an unknown natural
phenomenon, (f) an alien device, (g) some specifiable other cause, and
(h) some unspecifiable other cause]. There was a very wide spread of
opinions on this issue. Averaging all returns gives the values: (a)
.12, (b) .22, (c) .23, (d) .21, (e) .09, (f) .03, (g) .07. This average
response is therefore quite open-minded, although many individual
responses are not. Older people tend to give more credence to the
possibility of a hoax and less to unconventional possibilities. By
contrast, those who have studied the subject extensively attach less
weight to the possibility of a hoax and greater weight to the
unconventional possibilities.

Over 80% of respondents expressed a willingness to contribute to the
resolution of the UFO problem if they could see a way to do so but, of
those expressing this interest, only 13% could see a way. This is a
notable consensus which may encapsulate the dilemma which this problem
presents to scientists. Those who have studied the subject are more
willing to help and more likely to see a way to help.

Most respondents consider that meteorology, psychology,
astronomy/astrophysics and physics have relevance to the UFO problem
and some consider that aeronautical engineering and sociology may also
be relevant. Most respondents (75%) would like to obtain more
information on the subject, but they express a strong preference for
getting it from scientific journals rather than from books or lectures.

The returns identified 62 respondents who had witnessed or obtained an
instrumental record of an event which they could not identify and which
they thought might be related to the UFO phenomenon. The total number
of events reported was larger (65) since some respondents reported more
than one event. In addition, ten _identified_ strange observations were
mentioned, four investigations were described (including one detailed
study of ground traces), and attention was drawn to a few strange
events described in the scientific literature. It was found that these
62 respondents have spent longer than average studying the UFO problem,
that they are more positive in their assessment of the scientific
importance of the problem, and that they tend to be more open-minded
about unconventional explanations. Only 18 (about 30%) of these
respondents indicated that they had previously reported their
observations; seven to the Air Force, Navy or NORAD, one to the police,
two to airport authorities, seven to other scientists, and one to a
newspaper.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of those reporting events were night-sky
observers, as against 50% of respondents who did not report events.
Thirty-six (36) of the events comprised lights seen in the sky at
night. Twelve (12) were of point lights which were more or less
puzzling; four (4) were of formations of lights; and four (4) were of
diffuse lights. Three respondents independently described what appeared
to be a searchlight playing on a cloud when there were no clouds in the
sky. Four described disk-like objects, and five described objects with
different shapes. Three cases concerned objects which appeared to emit
smaller objects or "sparks." One case described apparent interference
with an automobile electrical system (as did also a daylight case).

There were sixteen accounts of strange objects seen by day. Five were
of small objects, seven were of disk-shaped objects, and four described
other miscellaneous observations.

Seven respondents described photographic records of strange phenomena,
and three were kind enough to provide me with copies of the photographs
or film. (With help, I was able to make plausible interpretations of
two of these.) One respondent recalled a radar observation he had made,
another described two strange radio records, and a third described
puzzling records obtained by a satellite tracking station.

This study leads to the following answers to the questions initially
posed. To judge from this survey of the membership of the American
Astronomical Society, it appears that:

(a) scientists have thoughts and views but no answers concerning the
UFO problem;

(b) Although there is no consensus, more scientists are of the opinion
that the problem certainly or probably deserves scientific study than
are of the opinion that it certainly or probably does not;

and (c) a small fraction (of order 5%) are likely to report varied and
puzzling observations, not unlike so-called "UFO reports" made by the
general public. As is the case with reports from the public, many may
be unusual observations of familiar objects, but some seem to be
definitely strange.

These results are consistent with the findings of an earlier but more
limited survey of members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (Sturrock, 1974b), except that the opinions of astronomers
(expressed in 1975) concerning the significance of the UFO problem were
more positive than were the views of aeronautical engineers (expressed
in 1973).



Jim Singleton
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS - telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23