by Stanton T. Friedman, 31628 Trevor Ave, Hayward, CA 94544 (415) 471-0160
1977 MUFON SYMPOSIUM
Scottsdale, AZ July 23, 1977
Copyright 1977 by Stanton T. Friedman
Note: The full 166 page 1977 MUFON Symposium Proceedings can be obtained for $5.50 Postpaid from UFORI, POB 502, Union City, CA 94587
ABSTRACT
Written comments concerning UFOs by science fiction writers Isaac Asimov, Ben Bova, and Arthur C. Clarke and by Scientific journals SCIENCE and SCIENCE NEWS and by astronomers J. Allen Hynek and Donald H. Menzel are critically reviewed. It appears that much of what has been written as supposedly scientific about UFOs is not scientific and creates inappropriate notions in the mind of the reader.
INTRODUCTION
A major difficulty for anyone trying to separate fact from fiction on the subject of UFOs is to know whose words to trust. Unfortunately, several science fiction writers and several scientists have been guilty of presenting fiction as though it were fact or scientific. The purpose of this paper is to review the written statements of some well known science fiction writers and scientists and to poin out the fictional character of the material presented in the guise of fact.
ASIMOV, BOVA, AND CLARKE
The three science fiction writers, chosen because they have written about UFOs, are Dr. Isaac Asimov (IA), Ben Bova (BB), and Arthur C. Clarke (ACC). IA has written more than 170 books and has won many awards for both his science fiction and his science books for the lay public. He has a PhD in Biochemistry and has always earned his living as a writer, never as a working scientist despite his PhD. I discussed IA’s anti-ufological viewpoints as presented in his book “IS ANYONE THERE?” (Ref. 1) in my 1973 MUFON paper (2). Someone unknown to either of us sent him a copy of the 1973 MUFON Symposium proceedings (3). IA noted the comments that I made and was stimulated to write a supposedly scientific article for the February 1975, Fantasy and Science Fiction (4). A much shorter version appeared as a background article in TV GUIDE for December 14, 1974 (5). Both articles deserve awards for massive misrepresentation, ignorance of the relevant data, arrogance, illogicality, and irrationality. As pseudoscience they would do well … or as fiction. As science they must be exposed and flunked. My focus will be on the FSF article because it is more detailed. Unfortunately, TV GUIDE has a weekly circulation of 18 million so undoubtedly that article did more harm.