er ig
. . « Markowitz’ failure to find detailed reports in print is puzzling. That
he should base his arguments on the
minor Chiles-Whitted case (of which
it is true that my evaluation is at variance with Hynek’s) or such a brief
observation, made under unfavorable
conditions, as the Tombaughcase, tends
to indicate that he is not really interested in the best documented sightings;
on the contrary, he is deliberately selecting borderline cases in an effort to
cast doubts on the validity of current
official and private attempts at system-
atic data-gathering. Otherwise, how
can we understand that the Forcalquier
photographs (taken by a professional
astronomer) or the observations made
at Toulouse and Mount Stromlo observatories, or the Loch Raven Dam and
Socorro cases, all of which are exten-
sively documented in print, should have
escaped his attention? He goes as far
as stating that no unexplained physical trace has ever been left after the
observation of an unknown aerial
phenomenon, while one of the books
he quotes in his bibliography describes
at length the investigations conducted
by Soviet physicists at the site of the
Siberian
explosion
in
1908,
which
come very close to meeting the conditions Markowitz himself has set for
“evidence.”
Elsewhere, commenting on my survey of the observations of unknown
celestial objects gathered and studied
by Le Verrier, he kindly reminds me
that the intra-Mercury planet theory
is an impossibility, as if I had ever
suggested that the objects in question
were such a thing.
Thus, Markowitz is guided by one
and only one idea: that one may not
consider the “intelligent control” hypothesis unless one is willing to abandon
entirely the rational processes upon
which science is based. It is a disturbing
fact that such grossly irrational arguments should still enjoy popularity in
the scientific world... .
JACQUES F. VALLEE
Department of Astronomy,
Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois 60201
. . . If scientists avoided topics which
involve possible violations of the inviolable laws of physics we should have
unsung memorabilia like these: “Marie,
this phosphorescence violates the First
Law;Iet’s study barium sulfate instead.”
“Xenon can’t react; it has a closed
shell. Ask any theoretician.” ‘“Conser1266
vation of parity is one of the immu-
table laws of physics, therefore it is impossible that...”
I doubt very much that UFO’s are
under extraterrestrial control, but if
they were so controlled I am sure we
primitive bipeds could prove the contrary by citing our laws of physics.
THOMAS R. P. Giss, JR.
Department of Chemistry,
Tufts University,
Medford, Massachusetts 02155
Markowitz has closed the door on
UFO’s and space travel by showing that
interstellar vehicles can never have
visited Earth because neither he nor
any Congressional committee has seen
one. Only unreliable witnesses see
UFO’s which might be extraterrestrial.
(An unreliable witness is anyone who
reports a UFO that isn’t an obvious
natural or aerial phenomenon.) The
scientific journals would, of course, be
full of observational accounts, if any
credible ones were presented, and scientists would be as eager to study them
as they were Velikovsky’s work 15
years ago. The evidence against UFO's
as space vehicles, based on Simon
Newcomb’s recent (1895) proof that
an intra-Mercury planet cannot exist,
is as convincing as Newcomb’s dem-
onstration, following accepted physical laws, that aircraft can’t fly... .
PHitie C. STEFFEY
2402 Third Street,
Santa Monica, California
While reading Markowitz’ article, I
could not help thinking about some
words I believe were written by Isaac
Asimov: that when a respected scientist said something was probable, he
was probably right, and if he said that
something was impossible, he was probably wrong.
IsapEL R. A. Garcia
152-72 Melbourne Avenue,
Flushing, New York 11367
I was amused and somewhat shocked
by Markowitz’ reference to Aristotle’s
“Physics” and “Metaphysics.” The idea
that “metaphysics” is equated with the
notion that “the laws of physics are
not valid” is not only misleading as
it relates to Aristotle, but threatens
to make the philosopher who spe-
cializes in metaphysics some sort of
buffoon. .
GEORGE COHEN
Philosophy Department,
Long Island University,
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Smoke-Filled Friendships
As the first three couplets of the
following verse attest, I share Turbeville’s aversion to tobacco smoke
(Letters, 20 Oct.), though, as the last
couplet shows, I do not often express
my objections.
A cigarette’s what the smoke from all goes
From wherever it is to a nonsmoker’s nose.
Smokers are who,if at parties they’re there,
I must later change clothing and shampoo
my hair.
A nonsmoker’s who, when it’s too thick to
see,
If you hear someone coughing, it’s probably he.
Friendship is what, though I gag, weep,
and choke,
I would much rather have it than absence
of smoke.
Smokers often ask a stranger, “Do
you mind if I smoke?” If the stranger
does not smoke, he probably minds,
and is then faced with the poor choice
of being rude or perjuring himself.
I suggest that smokers ask instead, “Do
you smoke?” and refrain if the answer
is “No.”
MILTON HILDEBRAND
Department of Zoology,
University of California, Davis 95616
Buffalo River Endangered
Carter’s article, “Dams and wild
rivers: looking beyond the pork barrel”
(13 Oct., p. 233), is most timely. Here
in Arkansas we have reason to be
keenly aware of the dam-building pork
barrel through our efforts to preserve
the beautiful Buffalo River in the
Ozarks of northern Arkansas. The Buffalo is one of the few free-flowing
streams
remaining in the
state.
For
years it has been threatened with impoundment by the Corps of Engineers.
The National Park Service recommends preservation of the Buffalo
as Buffalo National River. The great
majority of the people of Arkansas support preservation of the Buffalo. Bills
are pending in the U.S. House and
Senate which would establish the Buffalo National River, but these have not
yet come up for consideration. Despite
the growing realization of the economic
and ecological losses resulting from
unnecessary impoundments, strong pressures for unjustifiable projects continue.
L. ARCHER
Ozark Society,
Box 38, Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270]
SCIENCE, VOL. 158