Strange lights in the sky, little green men and crashed vessels secreted away to government labs — the relatively modern history of UFOs is replete with conspiracy theories and allegations of coverups.
But beyond the endless arguments between believers and debunkers over what could be behind the phenomena, the fact remains that many people have looked into the sky and reported seeing things they cannot explain. So what do UFO reports tell us about ourselves?
To discuss UFO sightings, how and why they first emerged, and the ways they tie into the cultural and political trends of the past and present, Live Science spoke with Greg Eghigian, a professor of history and bioethics at Penn State University, whose new book, "After The Flying Saucers Came" (Oxford University press, 2024), is one of the first social histories of UFOs, or unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). Here's what he had to say.
Ben Turner: A lot of people assume UFOs entered public consciousness with the Roswell incident. But your book says otherwise. When did it all begin?
Greg Eghigian: I think when we look at this as a social phenomenon — not just simply someone saw something strange in the sky, but that the object was made by somebody, and that one of the probable scenarios is they were extraterrestrials — we can mark the moment that starts to evolve in June 24, 1947.
The private pilot Kenneth Arnold sees these objects [that day] over Washington state when he's flying his plane. He lands and reports it to the military and to journalists. When asked how they flew, he answered that these things flew kind of like saucers skipping across the water. Then, within a day or two, a journalist comes up with this great headline: "Flying saucers."
Once we had flying saucers, everything else fell into place.
BT: But then Roswell happened just a few weeks later. How did a fairly small city in New Mexico become famous all over the world for UFOs, while Arnold's name remains relatively unknown?
GE: Here's the thing about Roswell that a lot of people don't realize. The story that came out of Roswell is that some material had been retrieved around an Air Force base there that they believe could be from a crashed flying saucer.
Within a day, the Air Force rolls that back, saying that it's not the case, the people who first found it were mistaken. The reality is that the people who were on the ground and found this stuff were not terribly qualified to talk about it.
They didn't understand what they had, literally, in their hands, and the people who usually dealt with the material were actually off at a conference. When they did finally get a chance to look at it, they said, "Oh this is pretty mundane stuff," and they corrected themselves.
So the Roswell thing gets a lot of air play, a lot of global news coverage for about 24 to 48 hours, and then it disappears. It's not really ever talked about, and leaves very little imprint on the UFO world for decades.
It's then only in the late 1970s that some ufologists (and this is a very common thing in the UFO world) go back over the records, dig deeper into the story and believe that they found all these contradictions in it. That's when Roswell became a focal point.
BT: Looking at the period of history where all of this kicked off, we have growing Cold War rivalry, the new existential threat of nuclear weapons, McCarthyism, fear of communism and Soviet Russia. It seems like a time that's ripe for paranoia and conspiracism. How much is all of the UFO stuff tied into that?
GE: Oh, it's very tied in. I make the point in the book that I don't think the UFO phenomenon as we know it would exist without the Cold War. There are a variety of reasons for that, but one of the often forgotten aspects of this is World War II.
WWII and the Cold War bring a number of critical things to the table for how UFO stories were built. Firstly, you have big governments — big governments and big militaries. You look at the United States federal government in 1900 and it's not a big thing, it's not this monstrosity. By 1945, the U.S. government was a large bureaucracy with a big military.
Secondly, what WWII taught everybody was that this institution can have secret programs that build remarkable technology, like the atomic bomb, as well as new kinds of airplanes such as jets. And of course, both conflicts also have a lot of spying.
So when the UFO phenomenon emerges, the initial thought of just about everybody is that it has to be one of these superpowers. This has to be somebody doing surveillance.
That's also a lot of the ways it's still spoken about today: Who's doing this? Who's keeping it a secret? What are their intentions? And could it harm us? So it's very much a part of it, and it haunts the story of UFOs for decades.
BT: There are also interesting preludes to the Kenneth Arnold moment in 1947. One thing that flashes to mind is Orson Welles' 1938 radio broadcast of the "War of The Worlds," which caused a mass panic that aliens were actually invading. Why did flying saucers take off in 1947 and not earlier?
GE: I think the game changer is the atomic bomb. That something could be invented that we had no idea about, that is just presented to the world, and has this enormous destructive power that could wipe out all of humanity almost in an instant.
When you ask why now, some people will respond that alien visitors have always been here and we're just noticing them now. But the argument that's usually presented is that it's probably because they [the aliens] saw us explode atomic bombs. This makes us capable of being conversed with, or a possible threat down the road.
BT: There's an appeal to a higher power in it too, right? In a time when religion is falling by the wayside, after all the horrors of the past century, people were looking for something that could save us from ourselves.
GE: There are certainly people who believe exactly that. The figure who lays all of this out is the psychologist Carl Jung. In the late 1950s, he wrote one of the first, and still one of the best, scholarly books on the topic.
It makes this argument that, real or not, what they [UFOs] represent to people is this idea of salvation from something, at least that's the hope. By the early 1950s you see the beginning of UFO religious communities, almost all of them tied to the New Age Movement.
BT: Everything you've said so far makes this seem like a firmly mid-20th century American phenomenon. I confess to having been partial to the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" back in the day. Do sightings stretch across cultures and into the past, as they claimed? Or is that a post-hoc narrative?
GE: This is a question that people debate pretty vigorously. There's no question that people reported seeing strange things in the sky dating back to ancient times. The most famous example is probably meteorites. For a long time the idea that rocks could fall from the sky seemed patently absurd, until people found out the reason is because there are a lot of rocks in space.
The problem with going backward in time and retrospectively looking at stuff and saying: "Aha! Here's another example of a UFO," is that it's deeply, deeply problematic from a historical standpoint.
Most of the time it involves an unintentional, and sometimes outright deliberate misreading of documents, artifacts or paintings. I've seen very good art historians, for instance, talk about paintings and say: "Oh my gosh, these things are clearly flying saucers!" When the objects they're referring to are objects in a particular religious ritual, or serve as a very symbolic trope. So it's very, very difficult to do that stuff [accurately].
BT: This touches on the methodology in your book. You take an agnostic approach: You don't take reports at face value, but neither do you dismiss them out of hand. How does one go about impartially assessing a UFO report? That's going to seem like a weird concept to people.
GE: Yeah it is strange to people, and I know a lot of people who still don't like that I do that.
For me, as a historian, it's partly the idea that I don't feel qualified to adjudicate some of these matters. I think some of these things have to be done by a meteorologist, a physicist, an astronomer or an engineer — someone who is far better qualified than I am to say what's possible and what's anomalous.
But the other part is that this is the way I get to the things that most interest me, which are human beings. I say in the introduction of the book that UFOs don't make history, people make UFOs make history. That really is the main point; it's that I'm interested in the human part of that history.
As far as we know today, UFOs don't have a natural history, they have a human history. Everything about them is related to our perception of them, our speculations and our discussions about them. The social fact of the UFO is very real, and it needs to be chronicled now. Whether these things also have a natural history I'm going to leave up to the researchers who do that stuff for a living.
BT: When you work through these reports, I'm sure some of them on their surface are obviously bogus. But others come from people, pilots for instance, who have no interest in UFOs and are speaking out at significant personal and professional cost. Have you come across any real headscratchers?
GE: Yeah a lot of them can be, or at least certain elements of them.
Back in the 1950s, there was one case that the U.S. Air Force looked into that really set them back on their heels. These two seasoned civilian pilots for Eastern Airlines, reasonable fellows, who saw this very strange object during a flight, they could even make out details from it and it was like nothing they'd seen before.
That's eerie and strange. They didn't have any explanation for it and certainly had no call to make it up — they weren't seeking fame and that wasn't a time you could make any money off this stuff.
Then there's the case of Lonnie Zamora in the 1960s, he was a police officer in the American Southwest who stopped his vehicle because he thought he saw a crashed car. He sees this strange object with people in a kind of white uniform working around it. Then they flit off in it.
By everybody's assessment at the time, he was a mild mannered guy, very cool headed and with absolutely no interest in publicity. He comes across as very sheepish in the radio interviews. That's another case where you sit there and think it's hard not to believe he saw something. Then you try to come up with explanations for what the possibilities could be.
BT: How do the reports evolve over time? Do they change as the culture surrounding them comes into sharper focus?
GE: Some things don't change that much. The overwhelming number of them are seeing patterns of lights, orbs or spheres of some kind that move in a strange way then whoosh away with no sound. That remains relatively unchanged from the beginning. But people also see cigar shaped things or triangles. A lot of these things are common across the world.
What has changed more dramatically over the years and over different areas, has been the description of the occupants of these vessels, the aliens themselves. Early on in the 1950s and 1960s, a very common thing would have been to talk about seeing what appeared to be robots — looking like the Tin Man from the "Wizard of Oz." We don't tend to see robots anymore.
Another very common thing during the 1950s and 1960s were what were dubbed, "little men." They weren't really described as green but little and usually gendered male for some reason. They typically stood at about 4 feet [1.2 meters], and in places like Malaysia, they were under 6 inches [15 centimeters] tall. Another very common thing in their descriptions was they were wearing old divers suits.
Then you get to the 1970s and 1980s, and there's a veritable zoo of creatures: things that look like insects; in South America and [in] the Soviet Union big hairy creatures that look like a Bigfoot or a Sasquatch are particularly common.
The one we have come to know as "the gray" is not all that common until the publication of Whitley Strieber's "Communion" book in 1987, from that point the idea of what an alien looks like really crystallized.
BT: That's got to be one of the things debunkers point to: the fact that the culture is shaping what people see makes it easier to call it a mass delusion.
GE: Yeah, the debunkers look at it and do that. What debunkers would like to do is to get even more concrete than that and say why somebody would see something at a particular time. They say there was a television show two weeks before someone's sighting. Then the person comes back and says I never watched it, and they go back and forth.
I firmly believe that the media of all sorts plays a formative role shaping the way people think, talk about and even see things. But from my standpoint, this is where I might deviate from the debunkers. I don't think that simply explains things away. It just means that people are human beings, they are doing what we always do.
When something happens to us that is really bizarre or unexplainable, it's not a surprise that what we tend to do is turn to analogies and to metaphors. It helps us to say, "Well, this was a little like this."
BT: These debates persist up to the present day, but things have changed a lot too. We're sitting at the tail end of our own UFO — or should I say UAP — wave. And this time, after U.S. Navy footage of mysterious flying objects was released in 2017, we've seen a very different reaction from officials. There have been Senate hearings, task forces set up, and NASA has even been roped in. What happened? Is it because everyone in the U.S. government now also grew up on UFO lore?
GE: A number of things have changed that have led to this becoming something seen as legitimate to ask questions about, and considered, even in academic circles, to be respectable to discuss. One thing is the reality of new surveillance and sensors to detect surveillance. In the United States, China and Russia there is an awareness of those technologies and, of course, a Keeping up with the Joneses attitude about them.
The proliferation of drones is one thing. Drones are everywhere now. I was speaking to a Swedish ufologist a few years ago and he said that the number of sightings that involve drones has skyrocketed.
On the extraterrestrial dimension, since the late 1990s astronomers have found out that exoplanets are pretty ubiquitous. That introduces the idea that planets are really all over the place, and that habitable planets are really pretty likely. I think that's made it easier to conceive of these things as possible. I've heard debunkers say they believe it's probable that there are extraterrestrial civilizations out there, they just don't think they're visiting us.
You also have people who are actively involved in lobbying people to take this seriously. There's Robert Bigelow, the billionaire, who's funneled a lot of money into this cause. Lobbyists now have the ear of certain politicians in America who see this as a valuable issue to them in some ways.
I think you have to always be a little cynical about politicians — they tend to be very pragmatic, and the fact that they come to this subject doesn't necessarily mean they're interested in UFOs, but in other things they can achieve.
BT: What are politicians trying to achieve by embracing it?
GE: I could conceive of them using this as a way to say they're going to keep money away from the military because they're not being honest brokers about this.
The number one thing I keep hearing over and over again, from people on these committees and those who are maybe less interested, is spending and classification. U.S. military secrecy has been a big priority since at least WWII, certainly since the Manhattan Project, and it's only increased over the years. Then 9/11 really doubled, tripled down on that.
This makes the UFO/UAP thing a great example for all these folks to say, "We've got all these whistleblowers saying all this stuff is going on. We haven't heard anything about it. You're keeping this from us. It's all supposedly classified. So we want in."
BT: One of the frustrating things about covering these questions is that you get task forces that are essentially military task forces. People come out to say all kinds of spooky stuff, and when they're probed further they say we'll tell you the rest behind closed doors, and no we won't allow scientists into the bases where we saw this. Now that NASA's involved, do you have more faith for civilian science projects to get to the bottom of things?
GE: Yeah, spot on. I agree with you completely. It's why I always tell people that, personally, I don't think these military intelligence branches will be key to addressing these questions. I don't think you're ever going to get it from them. I'm also not someone who believes in full transparency, sometimes it's important to keep secrets.
NASA's endorsement of research in this area is unprecedented, and I think it's very welcome. I know a lot of scientists who have started to try to conduct research along these lines. The problem we have is it has not translated into funding yet. A lot of the current efforts are on shoestring budgets and it's unclear whether that money is ever going to be forthcoming. So far, at least in the United States, it has not been.
But there is a hope among a lot of researchers that that will change, because the climate has changed. Civilian scientists and researchers are going to be the key, because we operate in a world of transparency, with an openness that contractors and government don't have.
BT: Do you think we'll ever get a solid answer?
GE: I suspect we will be revisiting and speculating over this for a good long time to come. The world's been at this for over 75 years, and the most seasoned ufology veterans will tell you that not a lot has changed.
If there is an opportunity for serious, empirically driven researchers to get involved, maybe then we'll actually start to see some real progress.
But until that time, it seems to me we're still stuck in a cycle where we largely rely on hearsay and references to evidence that never turns up. Or, as you say, people saying I've got some information, but I can only tell you behind closed doors.
That just leaves us with the mystery, which I know some people are satisfied with.
Editors note: This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
