After considering problems in percept.ion presented to the brain i.: UFO
sightings, tht: authors note that h the data comJ.ng in were cor.1pletely new,
it is probable the brain would pick a simplifying oypotliesls base<i on the
observer's experience and attitudes. The observer wouM then see and
remembe1• this inte1•pretation of the data, and one could not tell what the
original experience was really like.
Finch, Bernard E. Can they see us? Flying saucer review, v. 14, Mar. -.n.pr.
1968: 31.
Reports of the movements of flying saucers, including n8ll' misses of trf'es;
buildings, overhead cables, and hills suggest to author thai whoever is it,
control .- ppears to have very poor vision in our atmo!':iphere. He feels that
this cm. Id account for the strange and paradoxical 1·eported movements of
UFOs.
Fuhs, Allen E. Visual sensitivity of residents of other planets. ARS Journal,
v. 30, June 1960: 577.
Visual sensiti'?ity of hypothesized ir ~elligent beings outside our solar system
is dii: cussed.
Hughes, F. P. Letters: a tnlined eye on UFOs. Science, v. 156, June 9, Hi67:
1311-1312.
Drill designed to aicl discriminating observation of aerlal and/or atmospheric
phenomena.
Illusfons nf nature. Science illustrated, v. 2, Oct. 1947: 42-44.
Examples of illusions of nature that can fool man inb major misconceptions.
Luckiesh, Matthew. Seeing is deceivi11g. Science Hlu!':trated, v. 1, June 1946:
86-87.
Instances in V.'hkh if one believes what he sees, he often is believing what
isn't true.
Perrd, J a.cques. Barbu, mare de i:::Ue, hallebardes. Mercure de France,
Mar. 1, 1953: 408-427.
Commentary on difficulty of ascertaining whether or not lJFOs are
hallucinations.
Smith, E. R. UFOs and artificial satellites. Flying saucer revJew, , .• 7,
Sept. -Oct. 1961: 6-11.
Some conventional methods of observing things seen in the sky are discussed
for benefit of UFO researchers. Possibility of confusing satellites with
UFOs--and vice versa--is treated.
136