The J. Allen Hynek UFO Picture

reply to post by derpif

Interesting similarity. You never know you might be onto something.

Do we have a definite date for the Hynek picture? I might have missed it but...

reply to post by Pimander


No date yet for the photo
IsaacKoi said he had "other avenues to follow up"
hopefully he will let us know when possible.


reply to post by derpif

It shares some similarities with another random sighting, no?

Good thinking on your part and that's certainly a possibility but since Arnold didn't take any pictures, I guess we'll never know for sure. I have seen just about every UFO picture there is and the only one I ever found that had an object that looked similar to the Hynek UFO are the 1972 pictures from Salt Lake city, Utah.

More images here - www.anakinovni.org... and www.cull.de...

Not an exact match but I think they have some similarities

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Well, that's the problem. A stereo photo isn't nearly as valuable without both photos in the stereo pair. With them, and knowing the distance between the lenses, you can get a rough approximation of both the size of the object and the distance it is away from the camera.

Actually, I've seen them, and there's no discernible parallax, so the object was, well, probably at least a kilometer away.

As for the year the photo was taken, 1965 springs to mind, but I am recalling a conversation from 1974 and am probably wrong.

DJW001 .. do you know where the actual photos are now ?

Who or what has them ? Just wondering


Does anyone else have any information about the sighting or know what year it occurred ?

reply to post by easynow

DJW001 .. do you know where the actual photos are now ?

No, sorry.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by easynow

 

DJW001 .. do you know where the actual photos are now ?

No, sorry.

Hi DJW001,

I'm still looking for some basic information on this photo (despite being told by one leading researcher that I was involved in some serious time-wasting...) as part of a thread I'm writing about UFOs and Astronomers. It looks that thread may be the longest I've written yet...

I tried sending you a U2U a while ago about Hynek's photos - I don't know if you received it.

The short version is that I gather from your comments in this thread that you spoke to Hynek himself about the photos in or around 1974. Is that right? In what context did the discussion take place? What did Hynek say?

The long version involves providing you with a recap of the information and views I've collated so far from various books and emails. However, in terms of obtaining information, most avenues I've looked into were dead ends (save for comments and speculation) so the long version doesn't add much.

On the plus side, in contacting several people about these photos I've made some new connections which have already provided valuable...

All the best,

Isaac

The picture is not a light blob this time, it has a silvery surface beneath the illuminated top, whatever it is, it is not a bird or an insect, could be some weather balloon, blimb (I dont know blimbs to fly that high), it is an aircraft of some kind.

reply to post by bluemooone2


This cover "picture" on The Saturday Evening Post is a painting. The Saturday Evening Post, December 17, 1966 issue had the cover artwork by Paul Calle who did many covers for TSEP. (www.art.com...) There is no picture that I can find that this artwork would even be a representation of.

reply to post by IsaacKoi

I tried sending you a U2U a while ago about Hynek's photos - I don't know if you received it.

I did not receive it but I sent you a U2U this morning with some clues you might want to pursue. If you haven't received it, let me know and I will post them in the open forum.

reply to post by IsaacKoi



I appreciate your efforts to find more info on this picture


Can you elaborate on this a bit more ....
"despite being told by one leading researcher that I was involved in some serious time-wasting

I'm just wondering, why does that person feel it's a waste of time ?

Did they give any reasons why ?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by IsaacKoi

 

I tried sending you a U2U a while ago about Hynek's photos - I don't know if you received it.

I did not receive it but I sent you a U2U this morning with some clues you might want to pursue. If you haven't received it, let me know and I will post them in the open forum.

Thanks - got it. I've been looking into one possibility today arising from your message. I've previously explored several of the sensible suggestions you made (e.g. contacting CUFOS), but those proved to be dead ends. I'll send you a U2U with some more information, in case you are interested.

Originally posted by easynow
Can you elaborate on this a bit more ....
"despite being told by one leading researcher that I was involved in some serious time-wasting

Sure.

I'm just wondering, why does that person feel it's a waste of time ?

Did they give any reasons why ?

The relevant researcher (Jerry Clark) said that all the (limited) information I'd found simply proved the "self-evident proposition that Allen regarded these as curiosities and nothing more" so I was wasting time asking for any information about them.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Ok thanks and I'm guessing that means,

If Hynek never told anyone the date ... then it's a waste of time ... only because nobody knows the answer and not because the image isn't legit or interesting?


This quote from page 2 is puzzling...

"Finally, I include two photographs, Figures 8 and 10, taken from the window of an aircraft at 30,000 feet, of an object that I have been unable to identify. Perhaps some reader can identify it as a natural object. If so, I would appreciate knowing the solution. These are two photographs for which I can absolutely vouch".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That just strikes me odd because Hynek was a scientist and if he was asking for people to identify the object then he should have known we are going to need more information such as the date.

Oh well , food for thought and thanks for the reply

hey i never new there was a photo? i new Hynek had a sighting
but a photo? well i never! nice find:up
& all the books i have, ive never come across it.
& see all the top dogs are in the thread too,all good

Posting this version of the image incase someone missed it


source - keyholepublishing.com...

Why is the background in that version black ?

has the shape of the 1965 - Santa Ana, California. August 3. Taken by highway traffic engineer Rex Heflin,
do you agree, and the time frame may fit? as to whether this was hoaxed is in contention.
Hynek says there were two stereophonic shots? where is the other or is that x 4?



oh so they were lost.

reply to post by stealthyaroura


"oh so they were lost"

I don't believe the images-negatives are lost.

According to John P. Timmerman ... the publishers of Hyneks book have everything but the material is being withheld for reasons unknown?

Uploaded by DBarkerTV2010 on Jan 21, 2012

John P. Timmerman, friend and colleague of Dr. J. Allen Hynek discusses the photograph taken by Dr. Hynek while a passenger aboad a cruising airliner. Center for UFO Studies based in Chicago, Illinois. Footage recorded in 1999.

Link - www.youtube.com...

One of the books that includes the pictures:

The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry, J. Allen Hynek

"Finally, I include two photographs, Figures 8 and 10, taken from the window of an aircraft at 30,000 feet, of an object that I have been unable to identify. Perhaps some reader can identify it as a natural object. If so, I would appreciate knowing the solution. These are two photographs for which I can absolutely vouch".

Link - www.scribd.com...
Link - www.slideshare.net...

The question is; Why would the publisher of Hyneks book refuse to disclose the information ?

What would be the motive

reply to post by easynow


I find a problem with Hynek's photo that I don't know if anyone has pointed out since I didn't read all of the replies. The problem is that no matter how cheap the camera used by a passenger in an airplane, the photos always show recognizable features such as clouds, land, ocean, whatever. I'm sure that Hynek had a better than average camera which would have been capable of taking high quality photos not this photo which has no points of reference. Without a point of reference the object, whatever it could have been, is just a meaningless object. It cannot even be called a UFO since there is no way to tell that it's in space.

It's just a photo of an unidentifiable object and not necessarily a non-human craft. And Hynek's name attached to it and the resulting report are also meaningless. Folks, we need more to come to conclusions.

reply to post by The Shrike


Hello Shrike

The image posted is a scan from the book so it's not the best quality

That's why we need to see the original before drawing any conclusions

Wouldn't that be the most logical thing to do ?

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Hello Shrike

The image posted is a scan from the book so it's not the best quality

That's why we need to see the original before drawing any conclusions

Wouldn't that be the most logical thing to do ?

Yes, it would be. But even a scan of a photo from a book would show more of the image than what you're working with. I don't think that the original is going to actually show more than what we see. The "object" is seen quite clearly although no definition is visible. The photo just doesn't contain the kind of visual data that could result in a definite conclusion to call it a UFO. Actually, without insulting your intelligence, it's a worthless "photo".

reply to post by The Shrike


Until we see the original images, there is no way to know if more detail would be revealed or not.

And even though the scanned image doesn't show aliens waving at the camera .. the picture is important and has some value because it is relevant to the report & sighting and is corroborating evidence.

At the very least ... no one can say ... "pics or it didn't happen"