This month, the “60 Minutes” television news program aired a segment on recent sightings by Navy pilots of unidentified flying objects. The pilots’ accounts were supported by videos recorded by cameras on board their planes which captured what the government now calls “unidentified aerial phenomena”.
As a result of these enigmatic encounters, people ask me what I think about UFOs and aliens. They ask because I am an astrophysicist involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. My colleagues and I recently received one of NASA’s first grants to research signs of advanced technology on planets outside of our solar system. (I have argued in these pages that the 10 billion billion habitable planets that we now believe exist in the universe make extraterrestrial civilizations much more likely.)
I understand that UFO sightings, which date back to at least 1947, are synonymous in the popular imagination with evidence from extraterrestrials. But scientifically speaking, nothing justifies this connection. There are great reasons to search for alien life, but there are also great reasons not to conclude that we have found evidence of it with UFO sightings.
Let’s start with the Navy cases. Some pilots have reported seeing flying objects in the shape of Tic Tac or other unusual shapes. Recordings from aircraft cameras show amorphous shapes moving in surprising ways, notably appearing to graze the surface of the ocean and then disappear below. It may sound like evidence of alien technology that can defy the laws of physics as we understand them – but in reality, it doesn’t amount to much.
On the one hand, first-person accounts, which are notoriously inaccurate to begin with, do not provide enough information for empirical investigation. Scientists cannot accurately measure distances or speed from a pilot’s testimony: “He looked close” or “He was moving very fast” is too vague. What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints provided by devices that record different wavelengths (visual, infrared, radar). This kind of data could tell us whether an object’s movement required motors or materials that we Earthlings do not have.
Maybe the videos offer this kind of data? Unfortunately no. While some researchers have used the images to make simple estimates of UFO accelerations and other flight characteristics, the results have been mixed at best. Skeptics have already shown that some of the movements seen in the videos (like skimming the ocean) can be artifacts from the optics and tracking systems of the cameras.
There are also common sense objections. If we’re frequently visited by aliens, why don’t they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves? There is a recurring account, perhaps best illustrated by “The X-Files” TV show, that these creatures have a mysterious reason for staying hidden from us. But if these aliens’ mission calls for stealth, they seem surprisingly incompetent. One would think that creatures technologically capable of traveling the breathtaking distances between stars would also know how to turn off their high beams at night and escape our primitive infrared cameras.
Make no mistake: I will read with great interest the US UFO intelligence report due to be delivered to Congress in June; I believe that UFO phenomena should be studied using the best tools in science and in full transparency.
But there may be more prosaic explanations. For example, it is possible that UFOs are drones deployed by rivals like Russia and China to examine our defenses – prompting our pilots to turn on their radar and other detectors, thus revealing our electronic intelligence capabilities. (The United States once used a similar strategy to test the sensitivities of Soviet radar systems.) This assumption may seem far-fetched, but it is less extreme than assuming an alien visit.
What’s most frustrating about UFO history is that it obscures the fact that scientists like me and my colleagues are about to collect data that may be relevant to the existence of a lifetime. intelligent alien. But this evidence involves subtle discoveries about distant phenomena in the galaxy – not sensational discoveries a few miles away in our own atmosphere.
Powerful telescopes soon to be operational may be able to detect city lights on the night side of planets orbiting distant stars or the telltale mark of light reflected from planet-wide solar collector arrays or the hallmark of industrial chemicals in a planet’s atmosphere. All these “technosignatures”, if we can find any proof of it, will be small effects. If we detect such things, you had better believe that my colleagues and I will make extraordinary efforts to eliminate all possible sources of error and all possible alternative explanations. It will take time and careful effort.
The work of science, while ultimately exciting, is for the most part painstakingly methodical and boring. But that’s the price we pay because we don’t just want to believe. We want to know.
Adam Frank (@ AdamFrank4) is professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and most recently author of “Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth”.
The Times commits to publish a variety of letters For the publisher. We would love to hear what you think of this article or any of our articles. Here is some advice. And here is our email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Follow the Opinion section of the New York Times on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.