The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem - J. Allen Hynek, 1975

This is a really great lecture presented by astronomer J. Allen Hynek at a symposium of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1975. The AIAA is described on the organization's website as "the world's largest technical society dedicated to the global aerospace profession"

Truly unidentified reports of events in the air, and close to the ground, exist, events worldwide in origin and appearing to fit a relatively small number of patterns. The data, amenable to study of an interdisciplinary nature, involving a number of scientific disciplines and probably necessitating new departures in methodology, have been imperfectly studied in the past and have been virtually ignored by science.

J. Allen Hynek was scientific adviser to the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book and is about as close as you can get to an "authority" on the subject. His writing is without exception clear and intelligent. If you only read one book on UFOs in your life, make it The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by Hynek - available at Amazon for just a few bucks.

This lecture gives a good brief look at Hynek's thoughts on the UFO phenomenon based on extensive investigation and consideration of UFO reports.

Now, in the UFO problem we did not know at the start that there was a signal - there were merely tales, unacceptable to scientists as a body. Only those of us, through a long exposure to the subject, or motivated by a haunting curiosity to work in the field and to get our hands dirty with the raw data, came to know there was a signal. We _know_ that we cannot find a trivial solution to the problem, i.e., a common sense solution that the phenomenon is either entirely a matter of misidentification, hallucinations, and hoaxes, or a known phenomenon of nature, e.g., of a meteorological nature. We know that there exists a subset of UFO reports of high strangeness and high witness credibility for which no one - and I emphasize - _no one_, has been able to ascribe a viable explanation. But the Isaac Asimovs and the trained scientists, as well as large segments of the public, do not know this. And we cannot expect them to know this unless we present data to them properly, and thus provide motivation to study the subject.

Enjoy!

The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem

reply to post by Orkojoker


Another great thread mate and his AIAA speech certainly made a few very good points - I did enjoy this paragraph, especially the part about the change in color during acceleration.

The content of the most reliable reports, as judged by the caliber of the witnesses, describes, on a global basis, apparently physical craft which have the following properties: they can maneuver with ease in our atmosphere, they appear largely unaffected by gravity and the inertial properties of matter (as exhibited by the ability of hovering a few feet above the ground or high in the air with seeming little effort, and the ability to accelerate, often noiselessly, at incredible rates by ordinary standards). They appear capable of detection by radar on occasion, as attested by some of the best accounts which involve radar confirmations of visual sightings, and vice versa. At night they are primarily visible by self-generated light and only secondarily by reflection, and virtually all colors of the spectrum are reported, with a change in color often observed as the UFO accelerates.

Originally posted by Orkojoker

J. Allen Hynek was scientific adviser to the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book and is about as close as you can get to an "authority" on the subject. His writing is without exception clear and intelligent. If you only read one book on UFOs in your life, make it The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by Hynek - available at Amazon for just a few bucks.

Let's hope people take your advice as it truly is a great book - it's also freely available at the link below on Scribd format but it's definitely better to have it on your bookshelf.


link


Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


Thanks for your reply, Karl. I found that tidbit about color change during acceleration to be interesting as well. Paul Hill, in his book Unconventional Flying Objects, makes note of the same phenomenon. Great link by the way. I didn't realize Hynek's book was freely available to read online.

Here are a couple excerpts from Paul Hill's book (mentioned above) regarding the luminosity of UFOs:

There is really no secret as to what this illuminated and illuminating sheath of atmosphere around the UFO is. It is a sheath of ionized and excited air molecules often called a PLASMA. It has all the many characteristics of ionized and excited air molecules, and has no characteristics not attributable to ionized and excited air molecules with expected contaminants; thus the illumination is tied to an AIR PLASMA. I am not suggesting anything original, as it has been suggested by many that such is the case. Indeed, any physicist who has made a study of UFOs must know they are characteristically surrounded by an air plasma.

...All UFO colors stem from energetic, ionizing radiation or radiations, generated by the UFO, which ionize the air.

Of all the visible colors, red and orange correspond to the least energy. They are also the two most common colors associated with UFO low-power operation, such as hovering or low-power maneuvers. The electrons have been given the ionization energy, but not much more, and cascade down in small energy drops corresponding to red or orange. This is statistically probable, as there are more small drops available than big ones.

source

Good old Hynek! We could use a guy like him around these days. Seems the investigation of UFOs has been something less than scientific lately. I do so enjoy the efforts of authors like Leslie Kean and Richard Dolan as far as detailing accounts of the really good sightings. Much to be learned there. I just happened to recently pick up a copy of the Paul Hill book. Its a treatment of the subject that just doesn't get done by NASA scientists anymore. S&F

How can Paul Hill say: "during daytime the same plasma is still present, but usually invisible." I think Paul is wild guessing at that point, unless he is privy to information, that would require technical readout's of an alien starship during daytime.

I would assume, that an alien starship would not need a plasma field, during daytime; based on my hypothesis --- that a plasma shield is mostly only necessary during times when their is a lack of photons to fuel the stardrive --- unless the plasma shield is needed for landings, offensive and defensive OP's; or otherwise...just scaring the hell out of everybody.

An alien starship... should have the option of turning the plasma field, on an off, so as to go into a stealth mode, especially during night OP's; inorder to rely on some kind of impulse power [anti-grav?]; instead of photon driven star-power.

Originally posted by Erno86
How can Paul Hill say: "during daytime the plasma is still there, but usually invisible." I think Paul is wild guessing at that point, unless he is privy to information, that would require technical readout's of an alien starship during daytime.

I would assume, that an alien starship would not need a plasma field, during daytime; based on my hypothesis --- that a plasma shield is only necessary during times when their is a lack of photons to fuel the stardrive --- unless the plasma shield is needed for landings, offensive and defensive OP's; or otherwise...just scaring the hell out of everybody.

I don't think Hill says that the objects "need a plasma field" at all, just as a 747 doesn't "need" a contrail. He speculates that ionization of the air surrounding the objects is a byproduct of the propulsion system. I would think the same set of circumstances that cause ionization at night would also cause it during the day, although the effect would be less visible.

The ion sheath also accounts for some daytime UFO characteristics such as a shimmering haze, nebulosity of the atmosphere or even smoke-like effects sometimes observed when high contaminant concentrations and chemical actions may be presumed to be present.

source

I certainly have no reason to think Paul Hill had any inside information about these matters or knows that what he's saying is necessarily true. He's simply speculating based on his knowledge of physics and on the content of UFO reports.

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Good old Hynek! We could use a guy like him around these days. Seems the investigation of UFOs has been something less than scientific lately. I do so enjoy the efforts of authors like Leslie Kean and Richard Dolan as far as detailing accounts of the really good sightings. Much to be learned there. I just happened to recently pick up a copy of the Paul Hill book. Its a treatment of the subject that just doesn't get done by NASA scientists anymore. S&F

edit on 12-9-2012 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the reply, brother. I wish we did have some Hyneks or Keyhoes or McDonalds around today - somebody with intelligence to present this information to the masses in an articulate and well-informed way. Leslie Kean did a great job when her book first came out. Got a good bit of mainstream media attention including a bunch of decent length interviews, and she stayed right on message throughout. Richard Dolan also knows how to craft the message for an audience who knows nothing about the subject. Unfortunately, you rarely see him talking about it outside the UFO conference circuit. If James McDonald had lived another 30 years, the situation might be much different.

Here's one of Kean's appearances that coincided with the release of her book. In all of her public comments she's sure to maintain her "militant agnosticism" regarding the origin of UFOs - in other words she emphasizes that it is not known what UFOs are, but the evidence indicates they are real. Sadly, she is given douche bags like Dylan Ratigan to deal with.



This paragraph from Hynek's speech is particularly insightful, I think.

Scientific efforts can be seriously hampered if the popular image of a subject is grossly misleading. Funds can be curtailed and good men of science who wish to give time to the subject are apt to face misrepresentation whenever their work receives any public attention. Ball lightning is just as much an unknown as the UFO phenomenon, yet scientists can openly discuss these "balls of light" but are likely to be censured if they talk about similar unidentified lights which last much longer, are brighter, and move over greater distances, but are labeled UFOs. Proper presentation of the UFO phenomenon to the media may not seem an integral part of the UFO problem, per se, but its effects loom large

reply to post by Orkojoker


outstanding catch

Originally posted by Orkojoker

I found that tidbit about color change during acceleration to be interesting as well. Paul Hill, in his book Unconventional Flying Objects, makes note of the same phenomenon.

The vid you linked here mentions a bit about Paul Hill's NASA/UFO background (around 49:00) and there's a good synopsis below about his book -fascinating chap.

"I have read many books on, for, and against UFOs. Without question, this book brings the possibility of UFOs as close to reality as anyone could".

link

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Great link by the way. I didn't realize Hynek's book was freely available to read online.

Couldn't find any of his other books online mate but he certainly had a good way of putting his point across - below is a nice one about a horse in a bathtub and the two other articles also make some good points about radar/visuals and flight characteristics.


“WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT UFOs” by Dr. J. Allen Hynek

ARE FLYING SAUCERS REAL? By Dr J. Allen Hynek


Horse in a bathtub:

In considering extra-terrestrial intelligence, said Dr. Hynek, we may be putting the cart before the horse. As a humorous example, he added:

"'Speaking of horses, suppose someone comes here and tells us... there is a report of a horse in the bath tub. I think it would be rather pointless to then ask, what is the color of the horse, what does he eat, how could he have gotten there, who who installed the bath tub? The question is, is there a horse in the bath tub?

pdf

Cheers.

Another good one - can't really argue with the last bit.

"We forget that sometime there will be a 30th century science which probably will be as different (from science today) as Babylonian society. We went from the Kitty Hawk to the moon in 70 years. This UFO business has been going on for a quarter of a century. We should cut the nonsense and get down to study".

Newspaper Article

Has Orkojoker left (or been banned) from ATS as his avatar and star count are not showing?

If so this is a great loss for the UFO forum as he was a very knowledgeable chap

Yet another loss.So many people left-banned already.I really dont agree with this at all.

Originally posted by karl 12
Has Orkojoker left (or been banned) from ATS as his avatar and star count are not showing?

If so this is a great loss for the UFO forum as he was a very knowledgeable chap

Thanks for your concern, Karl. In fact, I was banned from the site briefly. I apparently stepped over a line that I was unaware had been drawn. I suppose I'd better take a closer look at the T&C. Fortunately I was able to assure management that I would be careful not to be a further danger to the community. Live and learn.

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Good old Hynek! We could use a guy like him around these days. Seems the investigation of UFOs has been something less than scientific lately. I do so enjoy the efforts of authors like Leslie Kean and Richard Dolan as far as detailing accounts of the really good sightings. Much to be learned there. I just happened to recently pick up a copy of the Paul Hill book. Its a treatment of the subject that just doesn't get done by NASA scientists anymore. S&F

edit on 12-9-2012 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)

I've been very impressed with Leslie Kean and her material she exposes! Thanks for bringing up her name. I think it is a must to find out about her if you don't know.

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by karl 12
Has Orkojoker left (or been banned) from ATS as his avatar and star count are not showing?

If so this is a great loss for the UFO forum as he was a very knowledgeable chap

Thanks for your concern, Karl. In fact, I was banned from the site briefly. I apparently stepped over a line that I was unaware had been drawn. I suppose I'd better take a closer look at the T&C. Fortunately I was able to assure management that I would be careful not to be a further danger to the community. Live and learn.

You stepped over a line? I stepped over a whole paragraph!

I was away for a few months and I probably wasn't missed 'cause I've just been un-banned and no one has welcomed me back! But it's good to be back. I tried hanging out at UE but it's a bad clone of ATS so I might as well hear it from the horse's mouth. I gotta watch my step and it's difficult dealing with these gullible members.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
This is a really great lecture presented by astronomer J. Allen Hynek at a symposium of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1975. The AIAA is described on the organization's website as "the world's largest technical society dedicated to the global aerospace profession"
snip

As much as I may have admired Hynek, he didn't stand out to me as much as Jacques Vallee who treated the UFO "problem" in a more informative and entertaining way. The following sentence by Hynek says it all: "And we cannot expect them to know this unless we present data to them properly, and thus provide motivation to study the subject."

Therein lies the real UFO problem, that the subjec cannot be studied. What would be the scientific criteria for studying UFOs? You can't bring one into a laboratory. You can't study them in the field. There can't be any motivation if there is nothing to study. All we have on UFOs are reports, both oral and written, photos, films, videos and those do not have any scientific interest 'cause scientists would not be able to come to any conclusions different from what is available presently.

reply to post by Orkojoker


I read J. Allen Hynek's book on Project Blue Book called The Hynek UFO report (1977) . Read it here: www.slideshare.net... Hynek's contention from the bluebook files were that we (the Bluebook team) did not have enough evidence to say that UFO's were real, although many stories were compelling. This book would have been his official report/ position on Project Bluebook.

It wasn't until a few years later that J. Allen Hynek admitted he didn't tell the whole truth about his findings from the above report and that they did at least have enough info to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that UFO's were real and that he was part of the Government coverup . In his own words:

J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO Research www.cufos.org...

He made this site after he came clean with the public. I think this site should be one of the most credible respected sources in Ufology since he is now looking at the UFO problem as a true scientist no longer married to the Government.

Originally posted by The Shrike

As much as I may have admired Hynek, he didn't stand out to me as much as Jacques Vallee who treated the UFO "problem" in a more informative and entertaining way. The following sentence by Hynek says it all: "And we cannot expect them to know this unless we present data to them properly, and thus provide motivation to study the subject."

Therein lies the real UFO problem, that the subjec cannot be studied. What would be the scientific criteria for studying UFOs? You can't bring one into a laboratory. You can't study them in the field. There can't be any motivation if there is nothing to study. All we have on UFOs are reports, both oral and written, photos, films, videos and those do not have any scientific interest 'cause scientists would not be able to come to any conclusions different from what is available presently.

I'm not sure I completely agree with your assessment (welcome back, by the way), or I would at least not state it in such categorical terms. It's not accurate to say that the subject cannot be studied. Indeed, it has been studied. What we cannot study, at least directly, are the objects (or whatever they are) themselves. The material that we do have, as you note - reports, photos, films and the like, along with what physical traces have or may become available - lends itself quite well to analysis of various kinds. To be sure, we're not talking about experimental physics here, but to imply that there is no knowledge to be gleaned from the available data is rather closed-minded in my opinion.

Perhaps the most important bit of information to try to discern at the outset is not what UFOs are, but rather if they are. The scientific community is certainly not convinced that they exist, but neither has it made much of an effort to find out whether or not they do. There is a prevailing assumption that Science "knows" that there is no signal amidst the noise with regard to UFOs. In fact, Science knows no such thing and has really not even asked the question. The situation has not changed appreciably since Dr. James McDonald said in 1969:

I believe science is in default for having failed to mount any truly adequate studies of this problem, a problem that has aroused such strong and widespread public concern during the past two decades.

Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

...I think we can make that six decades now.

Good to see you still here matey -- am rather drunk at the moment so better not post anymore.

Am reading this one at the moment and wish there were more active investigators like this out there (RIP Kenny Young)

link

Cheers