Nothing But Swamp Gas? – The J. Allen Hynek Story

S&F excellent presentation friend and lots of valuable information right here! Will read it all when I get home, thanks for the hard work, this is what is ATS all about

a reply to: mirageman

Interesting to note one crux of his career was when they 'dusted him off' to begin Bluebook (imo, a coverup) after the 52 washington UFO "Flap". Thats the same year the best film ever of objects came out of UTAH. According to your table the most sightings were recorded that year. They 'buzzed' Washington, I keep concluding thats connected with the UFO capture at Roswell.

It took a few years for them to mount a rescue to get their craft and crewmen back.

No soldier left behind seems to be a universal creed. Hynek must have been assigned to cover up the growing "Flap" (too many people flapping their gums about stuff they seen) but eventually came to believe some of the sightings were real.

Analysis of Utah and Montana footage, nothing seems to be in the public realm from the Washington "flap".
Sorry for the portions that have been "whited out"…

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks for your thoughts. My own view is that I don't see any real evidence to link Roswell to the Washington DC UFO wave of 1952. Project Blue Book and it's forerunners give no mention to anything happening at Roswell other than a green fireball sighting.

There is no 'genuine' contemporary film footage of the 1952 Washington DC UFOs nor any photographs. Mainly because , despite the massive interest by the media, less than a couple of dozen people actually saw anything. Most of them were military and some only tracked the UFOs on radar.

As for the Utah footage. Well it's interesting because it comes from an era when it was a lot harder to create faked footage. But if I accept the commentary telling me it's not birds or balloons then I still can't say for sure what I am looking at.

However 1952 was a year of record 'unidentified' cases (252).Part of this was due to the very limited resources Blue Book had been allocated during a year of record reports. In other years the number of unidentified cases never went above 46. Hynek was definitely called in as a debunker to dampen down the public hysteria at the time.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: intrptr

Thanks for your thoughts. My own view is that I don't see any real evidence to link Roswell to the Washington DC UFO wave of 1952. Project Blue Book and it's forerunners give no mention to anything happening at Roswell other than a green fireball sighting.

There is no 'genuine' contemporary film footage of the 1952 Washington DC UFOs nor any photographs. Mainly because , despite the massive interest by the media, less than a couple of dozen people actually saw anything. Most of them were military and some only tracked the UFOs on radar.

As for the Utah footage. Well it's interesting because it comes from an era when it was a lot harder to create faked footage. But if I accept the commentary telling me it's not birds or balloons then I still can't say for sure what I am looking at.

However 1952 was a year of record 'unidentified' cases (252).Part of this was due to the very limited resources Blue Book had been allocated during a year of record reports. In other years the number of unidentified cases never went above 46. Hynek was definitely called in as a debunker to dampen down the public hysteria at the time.

This makes me think about when i read the reports of the DC incident as a child my only thought was, how can they possibly explain this? My answer to myself was either it was real alien stuff or our own government. After being in the Military and seeing what was way ahead of the time back then, I am still not sure if this is us doing special ops or aliens. My hunch is the USA has UFO tech but how they got it, either Germany's research on the Nazi bell or aliens. A circular argument every time.

a reply to: mirageman

Just a minor editorial comment: "AMC" referred to Air Materiel Command (which existed 1946-1961, I believe, and was headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB.) The current AMC is indeed Air Mobility Command, but is the successor to Military Airlift Command (MAC.)

originally posted by: JimOberg
As an astronomer, he was an early 'obvious' choice for the USAF in hiring an expert advisor, but that choice was based on a fundamental error in the necessary expertise -- a perceptual psychologist would have had better insights into what was generating the reports, not a scientist whose observations were made using mindless instruments which recorded exactly what they were focused on, unlike human minds. He came to recognize this after years of experience, he was highly intelligent and intellectually disciplined enough.

The story that Hynek tells about riding in the back of a police squad car, while that car and others were chasing a UFO, must have convinced him of some of the psychological aspects. He asked the police to point out the UFO they were chasing and since he was an astronomer he knew it to be the star Arcturus, so I guess his astronomer qualifications came in handy for that particular incident.

He probably also gave some thought to how people might perceive they were chasing a UFO when it was really star. I'm not sure how many psychologists at the time understood that phenomenon.

originally posted by: JimOberg

arguing that a report by Soviet astronomers [led by Lev Gindilis] proved UFOs were genuine, when the report unwittingly proved exactly the opposite.

ADD: The report presented a statistical case for the reality of the UFO phenomenon. But neither the Soviet astronomers, or Hynek, realized that the 1967-8 cases the study was based on were almost ALL actually public sightings of a thrusting descent of a space-to-ground nuclear warhead delivery system called FOBS by the Pentagon [Moscow denied it even existed]..."fractional orbit bombardment system"

Weren't they "genuine UFOs" at the time though, while "Moscow denied it even existed"? Just another example where "genuine UFO" shouldn't be synonymous with "alien spaceship".

originally posted by: Kandinsky

Page 175

Wow did he really think the swamp gas incident strengthened his reputation? Seems like it had the opposite effect.

originally posted by: mirageman
Hynek himself later reflected that the ‘swamp gas’ fiasco was the low point of his career.

OK maybe it took him some time to realize that. By the way, excellent, thought-provoking thread, as usual, mirageman!

originally posted by: mirageman
As for the Utah footage. Well it's interesting because it comes from an era when it was a lot harder to create faked footage. But if I accept the commentary telling me it's not birds or balloons then I still can't say for sure what I am looking at.

I certainly can't accept that commentary without some elaboration on how those were ruled out, and while I can't say it shows birds, aside from the commentary saying it's not birds I see no basis for ruling out birds when I watch the video.

originally posted by: Justoneman
This makes me think about when i read the reports of the DC incident as a child my only thought was, how can they possibly explain this? My answer to myself was either it was real alien stuff or our own government. After being in the Military and seeing what was way ahead of the time back then, I am still not sure if this is us doing special ops or aliens. My hunch is the USA has UFO tech but how they got it, either Germany's research on the Nazi bell or aliens. A circular argument every time.

Did you read the wikipedia article? Several of the objects were identified, but since those reports support the official explanation and nobody trusts official explanations nobody seems to want to believe them, or else nobody even bothers to read the wiki article. While I admit the "swamp gas" was an over the top debunking that justifies some skepticism regarding some official explanations, that doesn't mean all of the official explanations are wrong. Some may actually be right and that's one case where I think the official explanation is probably right.

a reply to: mirageman

Project Blue Book and it's forerunners give no mention to anything happening at Roswell other than a green fireball sighting.

Why would it? Blue book was a cover up, right?

As for the Utah footage. Well it's interesting because it comes from an era when it was a lot harder to create faked footage. But if I accept the commentary telling me it's not birds or balloons then I still can't say for sure what I am looking at.

I can confirm the footage looked a lot like what I saw, expect the light I saw was at night, blue and below the valley rim.

In fact the twin object video is the only one in the public realm that is comparable. Believe me, I've down a lot of looking.

As far as linking all the events occurring between Roswell and the Washington "Flap", its a theory I'm bouncing around.

After Roswell is when the government began monitoring all sightings, all the secret memos, all leading up to the 52 events over washington. Thats less than five years all told.

I think they were paranoid with good cause. Imagine how the Somalis felt after they shot down the Blackhawks. Look at what happened? They came to get their ship and crew back. So it took five years.

How long does it take to mont interstellar rescue missions, in force?

About Hynek's view on the Cash-Landrum case...

originally posted by: mirageman
But his line of thinking was that the helicopters in that case were holograms. He didn't believe that 23 helicopters could or would be out on exercise that night. Nor did he doubt the claims that there actually were that many helicopters.

Knowing your in depth knowledge of that case do you think Hynek was way off here?

Hynek had good reason to accept that no physical helicopters were present. Allan Hendry had conducted a great independent examination (which was later confirmed by a DAIG investigation). Hynek's bias for trusting witnesses led him to think there must have been something seen in the air. I think his leap to extra-dimensional holograms in this case or any other is an interesting idea, but it trades one unknown or another more magical one.

a reply to: intrptr

After Roswell is when the government began monitoring all sightings, all the secret memos, all leading up to the 52 events over washington. Thats less than five years all told.

I would argue it was the Kenneth Arnold UFO sighting and subsequent reports from the public that piqued official interest rather than Roswell.

How long does it take to mont interstellar rescue missions, in force?

Guess that depends on if there's anything / anyone to rescue , I'm not sure there is or was.

a reply to: intrptr

I can confirm the footage looked a lot like what I saw, expect the light I saw was at night, blue and below the valley rim.

Sorry I am a little confused here. There was a lot of "UFO" activity in 1952. Are you saying you saw something in 1952 that is similar to the objects in the video?

And as for the "Roswell" link you've made to the Washington DC sightings in 1952 I'll say it's good that you can open your mind like that but relies on a lot of assumptions.

Here's why I don't think it stands up :

1) Roswell does not really feature in the UFO reports or literature prior to the late 1970s (There are some but they are vague and seem confused with the Aztec UFO crash story). It was a non-event within a day or two. The descriptions of the debris were of sticks, paper and foil like material. No debunking was needed after that.

2) The DC UFOs in 1952 were seen as a problem because the USAF and intelligence community feared enemy agents could flood the country with false UFO reports as cover for spying missions or worse still to conceal a full on attack.

3) Even if we accept something alien crashed at 'Roswell' and was kept well under wraps we have to get past how Jesse Marcel never mentioned any 'aliens' being recovered in interviews.

4) Going beyond that and thinking maybe he was concealing that knowledge (or somehow he never saw or heard of the alien bodies despite being the Roswell AAF base intelligence officer), then you have to consider the craft descriptions. These surely weren't of anything more than a 'shuttle craft'. The wreckage was supposedly transported on a C-54 cargo flight. So it hardly sounds like something you'd spend great deals of time aboard for interstellar flight. Where was the mother ship for 5 years?

Granted I have no idea about aliens and how they would get here from wherever they come from. But it takes so much of a jump to get to a link between the Roswell crash and the DC UFO events that I just don't see it.

In my mind Hynek was brought in to make sure the public did not get excited about UFOs. I really don't think Roswell comes into the equation here.

a reply to: CardDown

Thanks for coming back to me. This was only 5 years after the incident but Hynek seems to have failed to think about the case scientifically!

The fact of the matter is all reports of flying saucers or otherwise called unidentified flying objects ironically enough are false reports meaning misperceived under the act of deception.
The meaning is that unidentified space objects are fact yet do not interfere in any manner whatsoever which is why the ill mannered form of deception has been created due to the knowledge of the actual existence.
That is all reports except for one which served its purpose.

Now what is meant by that is simply explained by comparing it to knowing there are very dangerous people out there and teaching your child everything about what not to do with the consequences of not doing so except you are wrong and you know it.
Fear has a way of creeping up on you without even doing a thing.

For instance on the act of deception when you spend your life searching for what you find as it seems then and only then are you aware of the deception because of what happened before meaning it takes only one hello to show goodbye is a lie.
That may be difficult to understand but the meaning is directed at those who do.

a reply to: CardDown

Hynek's bias for trusting witnesses led him to think there must have been something seen in the air. I think his leap to extra-dimensional holograms in this case or any other is an interesting idea, but it trades one unknown or another more magical one.

I wonder if it was more complicated than that? Hynek's head was, arguably, turned by the types of witnesses he was exposed to. He was seeing people face to face and some of them were vouched for as being grounded, rational men and women. When we think of 'trusting witnesses,' it can be interpreted as a negative thing - gullibility. On the other hand, if even a few of the first-hand witnesses were endorsed by their chain of command as reliable or, at times, validated by multiple witnesses, then he'd be reacting normally and rationally.

It's there where people can lose their way. It's a crossroads where he may have extended more trust to reports that didn't deserve it. In contrast, a debunker might see a bad report and extend more distrust against reports, right?

Did you read Steve Volk's Fringe-ology book? It had Kubler-Ross experiencing a few unusual things and then becoming open to just about anything. Eventually she was screwed over and lost her money, her friends and her reputation by scoundrels.

Hynek's experiences could have led him down the garden path when it came to dodgy witnesses.

a reply to: Kandinsky

That is your opinion on a book as opposed to facts which were not written.
Deception had no beginning until the end.

a reply to: gortex

Guess that depends on if there's anything / anyone to rescue , I'm not sure there is or was.

Think about it though, you go back in time and leave a cell phone, handgun or time machine behind, you'd have to go back and get it. Look at the Cargo cults of WWII. Pretty much totally disrupted their Paradigm.

Like Star Trek, non interference protocols. Glad the suggestion peaked your interest enough to respond Gortex. Nice pic of Slash, btw.

Further: Kenneth Arnold released his story after Roswell broke. Charlatin, imo.

a reply to: mirageman

Sorry I am a little confused here. There was a lot of "UFO" activity in 1952. Are you saying you saw something in 1952 that is similar to the objects in the video?

No, much later. late 70's, California hill top. Specifically, this one was 'like' what we saw.

a reply to: PRINCESSBATTRICK

I am sorry but I don't know what point(s) you are trying to make in relation to Dr. Hynek's career and this thread?

You really need to clarify what your are trying to say in your posts. Because it's like an alphabetic jigsaw to me.

Use frequent punctuation and try to remain coherent. Do not lose the point made in a sentence by trailing off into a jumble of other thoughts.

Because, with your current style of writing, you will struggle to communicate your points effectively.

a reply to: intrptr

Aah I see now. Thanks for clarifying that. Obviously you saw something "unexplained".

Was that the only time you saw something? Or have you had any other experiences?

a reply to: mirageman


Since you asked… the last part of this post here… you wanted weird, you got it…

www.abovetopsecret.com...