What do you think?
Rate this book
The World of Flying Saucers
A first-rank astronomer and an experienced science writer dissect the flying saucer craze and find absolutely no evidence that any ships from outer space have visited the earth–as yet.
- GenresNonfiction
290 pages
First published January 1, 1963
5 people are currently reading
34 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 17, 2025
THE ORIGINAL ‘UFO SKEPTIC’ PROPOSES NON-ET EXPLANATIONS
Astronomer Donald Howard Menzel (1901-1976) and Lyle G. Boyd (1907-1982) wrote in the Preface to this 1963 book, “Both as scientists and as devotees of science fiction, we have long been interested in space travel. When reports of unidentified flying objects began to increase in the years between 1947 and 1952, one of us [D.H.M.] collected and studied the limited information available about the sightings. He soon concluded (with a slight feeling of disappointment!) that the flying saucers were not vehicles from other worlds but were only mundane objects and events of various kinds, some of them commonplace, some familiar chiefly to meteorologists, physicists, and astronomers.
“At a conference with Air Force officials in Washington in April 1952, he presented his idea that planetary mirages, sundogs, reflections, and other astronomical, atmospheric, and optical phenomena probably accounted for a large percentage of the mysterious UFOs. This suggestion met with strong skepticism from some of the conferees who at that time were sympathetic to the interplanetary hypothesis and were, of course, better acquainted with military than with physical science. Other conferees, however, wished to consider and test the theories offered…. The Air Force therefore granted access to the file of UFO cases. At the same time, since many of the cases were then classified as secret, the Air Force imposed the condition that security regulations must be strictly observed.
“D.H.M. was then preparing a book to present his explanations of flying saucers. Acceptance of the Air Force offer, with the accompanying restriction, would have prevented his publishing analyses based on material in the files. It would also have hindered any future public discussion of the UFO problem. For these reasons he felt compelled to decline the opportunity.
“In the spring of 1959 as we began planning the present book, we again requested permission to study the Air Force records of UFO sightings. This time the officials generously opened their files to us without restriction. Thus we have been able to include detailed studies of particular incidents, to give the explanations found for most of them by Air Force investigators, to explain the causes of some hitherto unsolved cases, and to suggest highly probable solutions for several classic ‘Unknowns.’… We have chosen to describe the common types of sighting and to analyze some of the representative and most interesting cases in each category.”
He explains, “In approaching the spacecraft hypothesis, the scientist asks first: What facts are we trying to account for? And second: Does the spacecraft theory account for these facts better than the normal explanations that are already available? After studying hundreds of UFO reports, however, he concludes that much of the startling ‘proof’ that saucers are spacecraft is merely inference. Of the established facts, none requires a new theory to account for it; and no evidence exists that even faintly suggests, to the expert, that interplanetary visitors are involved.” (Pg. 4)
They note, “No officials in the government, the press, the churches, or the universities have received any attempt at communication. No saucer has produced intelligible visible, audible, or radio signals.” (Pg. 9)
Of Kenneth Arnold’s 1947 sighting, they comment, “No one doubted Arnold’s word… Nevertheless his description showed some inconsistencies … If they had actually been 45 or 50 feet long, they must have been much closer than he thought; objects that size would not have been visible at the distance of 20-25 miles. However, if the estimated distance was correct, then in order to be visible the objects must have been much larger, at least 210 feet long. One of the estimates must be wrong---but which one?” (Pg. 14)
They recount, “An American Navy pilot… [in 1952] engaged in a ‘dogfight’ with a balloon that exhibited all the characteristics associated with this type of flying saucer… When the pilot was informed that he had been fighting a lighted weather balloon… he helped carry out an experiment. On the following night the station released another lighted balloon… and the pilot took off to try an intercept. After comparing the experience… he concluded that he had indeed fought a balloon.” (Pg. 43)
He explains, “The uneven distribution of temperature and humidity in the atmosphere is only one of the many possible causes of the radar angels often labeled as saucers. These ghosts may be produced by peculiar atmospheric conditions, back and forward scatter of radio waves, smoke, wind-carried debris, moisture-laden clouds, ice crystals in clouds or air, lightning, meteors, the Aurora Borealis, birds, insects, bats, electronic reflections from the moon, flares on the sun, or by ‘chaff’ or … foil dropped from airplanes.” (Pg. 164)
He observes, “With suitable material, statistical methods can suggest a correlation between any two sets of facts and can estimate the probability that the correlation is significant and not due to chance. No competent statistician, however, would try to apply the methods to such amorphous and uncertain data as those used by the [NICAP] committee. More than a third of the incidents cited come from newspaper accounts or the private files of saucer organizations in foreign countries. All leave many unanswered questions.” (Pg. 187)
He notes, “Flying-saucer hoaxes are rarely submitted to the Air Force as bona fide sightings. Of 1500 UFO reports, only 42 proved to be deliberate frauds or the delusions of unstable persons. The hoaxer may give his tale to the newspapers, to a lecture audience, or even publish it in a book, but he carefully avoids Air Force scrutiny. His story will not hold up under close investigation, and he knows it.” (Pg. 199)
Of the 1954 report of a UFO dropping metal from it, they recount, “A reporter… collected some fragments… and took them to a local chemist for analysis … then reported that the stuff was … about 90% pure tin… Brazilian saucer enthusiasts …[thought] the Air Force had either gotten hold of the wrong material or was covering up the true facts. Two years later… the reporter who had ordered the original analysis received another collection of fragments and turned them over to … civilian investigators… [who] sent fragments to the U.S. for analysis… When the New York chemist … reported that the material was an ordinary tin solder, the UFO group concluded that the fragment sent him must have been spurious, and refused to accept his findings. The Ohio chemist reported that his specimen … obviously contained other elements in addition to tin.” (Pg. 232-233)
Of the 1952 Chesapeake Bay sighting, he explains, “inversions of both temperature and humidity must have been present… During July and August, temperature inversions occurred almost every night in the coastal regions and accounted for radar angels so frequently observed in the Washington area… All these facts lead inescapably to the conclusion that sharp localized discontinuities of both temperature and humidity must have existed over Chesapeake Bay on the night the UFOs appeared… A change in the orientation of the light or a shift in the location of the inversion would account for the abrupt change of course made by the disks… Obviously this solution does not identify the particular beacon, searchlight, or other ground light that produced the … disks. But it does offer a highly probable explanation that is consistent with all the observations and does not depend on the presence of an extraterrestrial spacecraft.” (Pg/ 264-265)
This book will be of interest to skeptics, as well as those interested in the history of UFO reports in this country.
Astronomer Donald Howard Menzel (1901-1976) and Lyle G. Boyd (1907-1982) wrote in the Preface to this 1963 book, “Both as scientists and as devotees of science fiction, we have long been interested in space travel. When reports of unidentified flying objects began to increase in the years between 1947 and 1952, one of us [D.H.M.] collected and studied the limited information available about the sightings. He soon concluded (with a slight feeling of disappointment!) that the flying saucers were not vehicles from other worlds but were only mundane objects and events of various kinds, some of them commonplace, some familiar chiefly to meteorologists, physicists, and astronomers.
“At a conference with Air Force officials in Washington in April 1952, he presented his idea that planetary mirages, sundogs, reflections, and other astronomical, atmospheric, and optical phenomena probably accounted for a large percentage of the mysterious UFOs. This suggestion met with strong skepticism from some of the conferees who at that time were sympathetic to the interplanetary hypothesis and were, of course, better acquainted with military than with physical science. Other conferees, however, wished to consider and test the theories offered…. The Air Force therefore granted access to the file of UFO cases. At the same time, since many of the cases were then classified as secret, the Air Force imposed the condition that security regulations must be strictly observed.
“D.H.M. was then preparing a book to present his explanations of flying saucers. Acceptance of the Air Force offer, with the accompanying restriction, would have prevented his publishing analyses based on material in the files. It would also have hindered any future public discussion of the UFO problem. For these reasons he felt compelled to decline the opportunity.
“In the spring of 1959 as we began planning the present book, we again requested permission to study the Air Force records of UFO sightings. This time the officials generously opened their files to us without restriction. Thus we have been able to include detailed studies of particular incidents, to give the explanations found for most of them by Air Force investigators, to explain the causes of some hitherto unsolved cases, and to suggest highly probable solutions for several classic ‘Unknowns.’… We have chosen to describe the common types of sighting and to analyze some of the representative and most interesting cases in each category.”
He explains, “In approaching the spacecraft hypothesis, the scientist asks first: What facts are we trying to account for? And second: Does the spacecraft theory account for these facts better than the normal explanations that are already available? After studying hundreds of UFO reports, however, he concludes that much of the startling ‘proof’ that saucers are spacecraft is merely inference. Of the established facts, none requires a new theory to account for it; and no evidence exists that even faintly suggests, to the expert, that interplanetary visitors are involved.” (Pg. 4)
They note, “No officials in the government, the press, the churches, or the universities have received any attempt at communication. No saucer has produced intelligible visible, audible, or radio signals.” (Pg. 9)
Of Kenneth Arnold’s 1947 sighting, they comment, “No one doubted Arnold’s word… Nevertheless his description showed some inconsistencies … If they had actually been 45 or 50 feet long, they must have been much closer than he thought; objects that size would not have been visible at the distance of 20-25 miles. However, if the estimated distance was correct, then in order to be visible the objects must have been much larger, at least 210 feet long. One of the estimates must be wrong---but which one?” (Pg. 14)
They recount, “An American Navy pilot… [in 1952] engaged in a ‘dogfight’ with a balloon that exhibited all the characteristics associated with this type of flying saucer… When the pilot was informed that he had been fighting a lighted weather balloon… he helped carry out an experiment. On the following night the station released another lighted balloon… and the pilot took off to try an intercept. After comparing the experience… he concluded that he had indeed fought a balloon.” (Pg. 43)
He explains, “The uneven distribution of temperature and humidity in the atmosphere is only one of the many possible causes of the radar angels often labeled as saucers. These ghosts may be produced by peculiar atmospheric conditions, back and forward scatter of radio waves, smoke, wind-carried debris, moisture-laden clouds, ice crystals in clouds or air, lightning, meteors, the Aurora Borealis, birds, insects, bats, electronic reflections from the moon, flares on the sun, or by ‘chaff’ or … foil dropped from airplanes.” (Pg. 164)
He observes, “With suitable material, statistical methods can suggest a correlation between any two sets of facts and can estimate the probability that the correlation is significant and not due to chance. No competent statistician, however, would try to apply the methods to such amorphous and uncertain data as those used by the [NICAP] committee. More than a third of the incidents cited come from newspaper accounts or the private files of saucer organizations in foreign countries. All leave many unanswered questions.” (Pg. 187)
He notes, “Flying-saucer hoaxes are rarely submitted to the Air Force as bona fide sightings. Of 1500 UFO reports, only 42 proved to be deliberate frauds or the delusions of unstable persons. The hoaxer may give his tale to the newspapers, to a lecture audience, or even publish it in a book, but he carefully avoids Air Force scrutiny. His story will not hold up under close investigation, and he knows it.” (Pg. 199)
Of the 1954 report of a UFO dropping metal from it, they recount, “A reporter… collected some fragments… and took them to a local chemist for analysis … then reported that the stuff was … about 90% pure tin… Brazilian saucer enthusiasts …[thought] the Air Force had either gotten hold of the wrong material or was covering up the true facts. Two years later… the reporter who had ordered the original analysis received another collection of fragments and turned them over to … civilian investigators… [who] sent fragments to the U.S. for analysis… When the New York chemist … reported that the material was an ordinary tin solder, the UFO group concluded that the fragment sent him must have been spurious, and refused to accept his findings. The Ohio chemist reported that his specimen … obviously contained other elements in addition to tin.” (Pg. 232-233)
Of the 1952 Chesapeake Bay sighting, he explains, “inversions of both temperature and humidity must have been present… During July and August, temperature inversions occurred almost every night in the coastal regions and accounted for radar angels so frequently observed in the Washington area… All these facts lead inescapably to the conclusion that sharp localized discontinuities of both temperature and humidity must have existed over Chesapeake Bay on the night the UFOs appeared… A change in the orientation of the light or a shift in the location of the inversion would account for the abrupt change of course made by the disks… Obviously this solution does not identify the particular beacon, searchlight, or other ground light that produced the … disks. But it does offer a highly probable explanation that is consistent with all the observations and does not depend on the presence of an extraterrestrial spacecraft.” (Pg/ 264-265)
This book will be of interest to skeptics, as well as those interested in the history of UFO reports in this country.
November 27, 2025
Good overview of the 1940s-1950s UFO craze. The tone is a bit "these SAUCER IDIOTS dont know about [rare meteorological circumstances leading to weird observations], unlike us, the enlightened skeptics" which is not wholly unwarranted at times but can also be really grating after a while. Wish there were more pictures though.
November 14, 2015
A somewhat enlightening introduction to the science behind what people think they see when they report UFO's. Especially helpful were details about how weather balloons act and appear, radar anomalies and the particular ways celestial objects can be distorted by the atmosphere. I was somewhat put off by his contemptuous treatment of the (then fledgling) UFO enthusiast groups, but even those were interesting in painting the picture of the state of public awareness at the time (early 1960's). A good introduction to the early famous cases and hoaxes.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews