UFOLOGY: THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
AND SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE STUOY OF
UNlDENTlFlED FLYING OBJECTS
3oseplz A. Blake
The UI;O Problem
TJIIS paper is conccrned with ufology. By ufology we mean the study
of unidcntified flying objects as elements in an indepndent theoreticalconccptiial scheme. This is a roundabout way if referriiig to
ufology as a 'science', necessitated by the tact that its status as a
'science' js questioned. Yet, ufology has devclopcd as a distinct body
of data siudied by distinctly 'crcdentialled' invesiigators, some of tlien~
affiliated with organisations devoted to the study of UFOs. Ufology
is also in the process of developing distinct theoretical schema
appropriate to its data base. l'he task of this pnper dl bc to explore
ufology 3s a developing sciencc, in comparison with and agûinst the
backdrop of convcntional or normal science.
The essential problem in nprd to uiiidentified îlyiiig objects has
always becn accountability. There are hvo general ways of accounting for them. The lirst is to dcfine them as naturnl phenornena, thus
including them within the bounds of normal sciencc. Indeed, we my
s~y that the definition of UFOs as natunl phcnomena follows from the
acceptance of one or another of the thcories of normil science. Those
within this category include the debunkers and the hopefuls. The
former arc convinced ihat UFOs are 'nothing more than' stars, birdq
swamp gas, hoaxes, or 'mass hystecia'.' The Iiopefuls are those who
mould argue, and hope to demonstrate, that UFOs are secret wcapoiis,
ertra-terrestrial vchicles or something else subsumable under normal
science.' Tiieir task is to marshall the cvidcnce. This tnsk appears
doomcll to frustration by virtue of the non-receptivciicss of estnblishmcnt science.'
Tlic sccoiid style of nccountability Iiüs Lven the :iticrnpt to prcsctit
UPOs as somcthing bcyond the confincs of noriiinl scicnce. For
twcnty-rive ycnrs or more ihis type of accountiiig Ilas bccn mono-
Yoseph A. Blake
~oliscencfit of the ivitnccs. Maybe the9
motutor our adrcnalin . . .
Salisbury2
" teils us tliat, 'UPOs have specific characteristics tliat match
the time and place of tlieir siglitings.' Ire suggests tlmt, 'the UFOs
seemcd to be putting on a show, a display ainzcd specificaiiy ut the
~uitncsses'.~~ The approach of hlisbury and Stringfield is a natural
science approach of hopefuis. One of the more consistent subjective
approaches is that of Clark and Colemado and aiIl be dealt with in
thc next section.
Tlzeoreiical Elemciits of Ufology
Ainong the tlicoretical clcmznts of ufoloçy with whicli we sliall
dcnl arc conccptualisation, scopc and methdoloçy. By conccptualisntion, of course, \ve refcr to the langunge of iifo!ogy. Altliocigli soiii~
yoseph A. Blake -
.coiifusion and ambiguity exists in this regard it is, nonethcless, the
area of most agreement among ufologists. By scope we refer to the
breadth of phenomena covered by various perspectives in ufology.
It is in this regard that we find the most diversity among ufologists
as different definitions of scope come to define different and competing
theorics of UFO. By methodology we refcr to those niles of proccdure and evidence used by ufologists in guiding their work and
detennining the credibility of their data. Here we find the greatest
collective emphasis among ufologists.
We have, inevitably, used certain concepts of ufology already in
this paper. An cxpandcd discussion is necessary, however. We have
first to note the distinction betwcen a sighting and a report. According to one ufologist :
tA "sighting" is any observation of Mme unexplained aerial phenornenon.
A "report" is tlie oral or wntten record of a qighting. A "case" refcn
to a report, plus other elementa that are associatcd with if, sucli as in- formation about the observer, an account of the investigation, rcferenca
to the report, or conclusions drawn from the inforinrition gath~red>'~
Such distinctions are simple, comrnon, but necessary. We nccd onlg
rcfer to a case in which the distinctions wcre not madc to sec why.
ïhe fact is that mani UFO sightings are not reportcd. A ~aÏlu~
public opinion poll relcased early in 1966 estimatcd that a total of
~,ooo,ooo Amcricans have seen UFOs; 5 per ccnt of the sample who
had heard 01 WOs reported a sightiiig to thc Gallup intervicwcr."
This compares to a total of 10,147 rcports to the Unitcd States Air
Force up to January 17, 1966." This is substantiatcd by IIynek:
'Whencvet 1 give a prescntation to Mme gtoup 1 frequcntly will ask them,
wcll, how many of you have scen 'somcthing in tlie skics you couldn't
explain; that is, a UliO . . . 1 have been surprised to fid tht IO to 15
per cent . . . [indiate that thcy have]. Tlicn 1 ask the second one,
did pou report ic to the Air Force? And maybe one or nvo wiii Say tluit
thcy , ,
Furthcr vefification of this fact is providcd by an attitude survey
donc for the Scihific Shiy of Unidcnfified FIyirtg Objects, which
rcvcalcd th? 87 pcr ccnt of those. in the sample who Iiad sccn a
UPO reportcd it only to family and f;iend~.~'
Failurc to distingiiish bctwccn a sighting and a rcport nlay obscure
important difircnccs hctwccn those who answcr 'yes' to a qucstionnairc itcm and those wlio take the tiinc, troitblc and risk of offering
a report to an official ogency. Warren:' for example, overlooks this.
distinction. He utilised the Gallup poli data rcferred to above to
test his hypothesis that UFO sightingS are linked to status frustration
and status deprivation. He found a positive relationship. His findings
may hold in cornparhg sighters and non-sighters who respondcd to
the poll. They may even say somcthing about a society that generates
such problems. But they constitute a social science debunking and
moral putdown of those who report UFOs, as weli as many of those
studying the phenomena. The Gallup sarnple represented a cross
section of the nation's population. Those who actually report sightings
constitute a very select group, evidently diffcring from sighters in
tenns of occupation, status, education, etc. Findings in relation to
the fint group cannot be generaüsed to the second.
That there is some loose usage of the terms among ufologists is
also cvident whcn they are used to define otlier concepts. Rloecher,J'
for exarnple, defincs a 'wave' as, 'any sudden and pronounced increasc of UFO sightings on a national scale, abovc what is ordinady
considered an average daily rate.' I;1ammonde'"dcfiiies a 'concentration' as, 'an uniisudly high number of sightings in one location,
or over a larger geograpliical am in a vcry short period of timc.' That
those authon refer to the temporal and spatial pnramctcrs of aggreptcd rcports, rather than sightings, is obvious from thcir discussion.
The basis of confusion here lies in the fact that, in any wavc or concentration, different numbers of rcports may be made to different
agcncics. For example, Hall," rcpresentiiig the National Investigations
Committce on Aerial Phenomcna, lists tweiity reports for 1947; the
United States Air Force Project Blue Book rclca~e'~ lists 122;
Bloccher'' searclied 142 ncrvspapers in 93 citics of 49 States, 2 Canadian provinces and the District of Columbia and foiind 843 rcports.'"
me relationship of 'wavesy 31d 'conccntratioiis' to 'flaps' is apparent. A flap is the result of a wave-conceiitration. Bloecher" gives
us the Air Forcc definition of flap as an 'advancd state of confusion'.
Both Flanmonde'.' and Stringfieldqs indicatc the media gencrated
nature of a 'fiap'. According to Flammonde:
'The iriiporrancc of knowving the Jiffcrcnce bctwcrn "coticrntration" and
"nap" lies in the fact tlint oltçn a single pcctrliar zigliring or allcgçd landing rnay stir uy the reporters, who rush 011, wriie their 'tories, and
crcnte a "f13p1', wIde a conPeter Rogerson:
'This idea of the UFO and Fortean phenomcm [unexplained physigi and paraphysical evcnlsl as symholic of the unconsdous forces within
oursclver allows us to undcrstand same of the ferveur behind the sccpticism of government and dence. The [U.S. Air Force] Project Blucbook and Condon Enquiry [the miich-criticised University of Colorado
government sponsored UFO study . . . which after nvo years and 11aY a million dollars concluded that UFOs are not worth s~dying] un be seen as magical zcts, ritual exorcisrn of the "tcrrors of the dark", and a magiul reaffirmation of the boundaries of the "cultiiral univer~e"."~
In the process of building their own new science, pâraufology, they
criticaily bare a weakness of nomai science, by exposing its operations as essentiauy hum.111.
Whcn we speak of methodology WC cefer to rules for the condua
of inquiry. We can analytidy distinguish rules of procedure from
rules of evidence. The former rcfers to ways of genciating data, the
latter to the evaluation of the data that are generated. The general rule
of procedure is that only that which is obtained by proceeding according to specifiable niles can be accorded the status 'data'. The general
rule of evidence is that oniy thosc data that ffieet certain criteria can
be accordcd the status 'good data', or 'credible data'.
'Methodologies' clcarly differ. Those mhom we have caiied the
naturatists prefer to follow the canons of noml scicnce. This rcsults
in an emphasis on methodology, with perhaps sorne liypothesis testing but littie emphasis on theory building. The 'paraufologists' are
more likcly to adopt a 'macrocosmic' approxh eniphasising thcory
construction and de-emphasising methodology. It becomes, at times,
dificult to dctermine des of procedure and evidence. Nonetheless,
tlicre is a rncthodology iinplied by the macrocosmic approach. Clark
and Coleman tell us, for instance, that:
'If at thcir core UFO evcnts are subicctive, producn of unconscious
nceds, the UFO fact and fiction may he inwparnble, for they dnw on the wmc crcative soiircc; the human psychc and the nrclietypcs of the
collcctive unconscioua'*'
Sincc the approach fociiscs on the cotiiertt of UF0 accouiits us giuen,
the proccdut31 ride rnust bc thnt oliy story reliltitig to UFOs con-
stittdes data. Good data, we may assume, are those which have cnough
points of incredibility to allow comparison among apparencly similar
cases.
It seems at times that the overriding concern of the naturalists is
~vith developing methods adequately to determine the nature of UFOs.
The naturalists themselves provide a strong lorce for defining ufology
as a science. Many have natural science credentials. By bringing
themselves and their tools to the studp of UFOs they strive to bring
respeaability to the phenornena. niey attempt to do this .thmgh
an emphasis on methodologicd ngour.
Among the naturaiists we find the expeaed injunaions of ciear
definition;" prcferable acceptance of first hand reports;'* cicar interview strategies;" and generally close investigation of each case using
thc available tools of the social and naturd sciences. The author has
persond experience in this regard from having hezrd an investigation
reported by a member to the Chicago Area Subcommittee of the
National Investigations Cornmittee on Aerial Phenomena. The investigator used a questionnaire, as well as informa1 interview techniques, scouted and measured the terrain, calculated altitude by use of
trigonometry, etc. Whatever else it was, the result was a well conducted investigation. Where appropriate, the naturalists use othei
techniques, such as photo dnalysis,18 and laboratory forensic techniques.
WC also find thc naturalists prepared to bc methodologically
crcative. 'Rie report of the Condon group on the unworthiness of
UFOs for study occxisioned such crcativity. Both Saunden and
Harkins and Hynekag proceed from a critique of the Condon grnup.
Both claim that the Condon grotip violated a cardinal le of procedure by failing to definc the problem correctly. Saunden and
IIarkins note that : . 'mhen the Univcr~ity of Colondo Proicct bcgan, the ET1 [Extra-Terrestrial Intclligencc] Hypothcsis did not Imk vcry promising. This was not
bccausc ETI.coiildn't explain a lot of otber\vise perplexing '%C~S", but
hccausc it wns not established at tlic more fundnniental level that thex
"fpcts" ycre rcmarkahlc enougli to rcqiiirt any explanation at ail."*
According to 1-Iynek:
~fic history of science lias siiown tliat it is tlic things tlnt don? fit,
the appnrcnt exceptions to tlic rulc, tlint cignnl potcntinl brcakthmughs
in oilr conccpt of tlic world abolit us. Atid it tvns thcse cascs thnr should
havc hccn stiidicd from mnny aiiglcs. 'I'lie coiiirnittcc chose to con- sidcr only thc problem of wlicrhcr UFO reports . . . supportcd tlie
hypothcsis that the earth was bcing visited by cxtn-terrcsnid intclliqcnces