Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> May -> Re: Dr. J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986)

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 18:54:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 23:36:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986)


>From: "Bill Stockstill" <slick1ru2@email.msn.com>
>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Dr. J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986)
>Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 12:11:00 -0400

>>Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 19:38:43 -0700
>>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@bellsouth.net>
>>To: UFO UpDate <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Dr. J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986)

>>One of the finest ufologist in the USA was Dr. Hynek, and we
>>lament that the new generation, involved in the most ambiguous
>>aspects of the UFO phenomenon, such as abductions, sometimes
>>don't even reconize his name.

><snip>

>I totally agree that Dr. Allen Hynek should not be forgotten. He
>did make a huge impact on giving credibility to Ufology, with
>CUFOS being his legacy. But what I can't stop wondering about is
>why did he not try and present these totally unexplainable cases
>to his fellow scientists while he was a consultant to the Air
>Force. Where would we be now if prior to the Colorado
>Investigation (Condon Report) he had presented all the data from
>the unexplained cases to the scientific community in the
>appropriate setting.

JC:   Bill, your first question is certainly valid, however the
second, where we would be right now is definitely of lesser
importance. It's a "could have"/"should have" question which
psychologists tell us time and again not to bother ourselves
with. What is important is where we are now, where we can get to
from here & how to get there.

Getting back to your first question; it does have some good
answers if one really looks closely at what actually happened
back then and what things were really like.

>Reading Forbidden Science, written by perhaps his closest friend
>and colleague Jacques Vallee, Hynek's reasoning is that he did
>not want to upset the Air Force by disclosing the quality
>unknown cases to the scientific community. His fear was that he
>would be denied further access to the data.

JC:   You have to admit, this certainly qualifies as a valid
point to the person gathering data. He was the only civilian
scientist that I'm aware of that had any kind of close proximity
to the military data. For many years the military was looking to
downplay the data. Since they hired Hynek, I think it is
reasonable to assume that Vallee was right. Some of the other
members of this list have a better grasp of this early material
than I do and could adequately demonstrate this to you. I can see
at least several other reasons as well.

1.	When Hynek was first hired by the Air Force, it was to
disprove the reality of UFOs. Hynek himself admits to scoffing
at the whole subject. (Hynek, The UFO Experience, 1972) However,
his opinion changed over the years.   Please see the following
quotes from Hynek re his evolution located at:
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.3b.html#anchor75480

2.	Not being a scientist I may not be stating this perfectly
but, as I understand it, one important part of the scientific
discipline says that other scientists must be able to recreate
the results of any hypothesis in a laboratory, field setting,
etc. for undeniable proof to be communicated to all scientists.

3.	The data back then simply wasn't strong enough to display
in a thoroughly scientific, mathematical, etc. setting; but
reports definitely existed that were certainly "out of the norm"
and not easily explainable in scientific terms. My guess is that
privately, to some people he felt safe with, he probably did
discuss some cases that puzzled him. Indicative of this, please
see comments by Walter Webb (astronomer at Charles Hayden
Planetarium, Boston):

http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.3b.html#anchor904745

But Hynek was a good scientist. He knew the type proof he needed
before he could prove any hypothesis conclusively. One is
foolish to shout something too loudly if you can't prove it.
(Yet, the longer he studied all of it, the apparent quality and
quantity of certain type cases seemed to suggest hypotheses that
really stretched the boundaries of our thinking; dimensional
approaches, etc) Dr. Hynek wasn't sure what the answer was
himself but he wanted to see it seriously studied.

4.	UFOs were not always (or ever? ..possibly in his latter
years) his main line of work. For a few insights into his life
please see:
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.3a.html

5.	UFOs have not displayed themselves for "study which lends
itself to duplication." They don't normally appear on command
when you want them to. For the most part, a person has no idea
where to set up his instruments if he wants to measure it, etc.
Studying this phenomenon isn't much different today except we've
had some more time to gather what small amounts of solid data
are available for analysis. (Trace cases, radar tracks, gun
camera film from various military sources.. the majority of
which is probably top secret, etc. films or videos people claim
to have taken, etc.)

6.	One must also remember that people react differently in a
group setting than they do individually. What a scientist would
say to Hynek in private certainly might easily be different than
what that person might say in a committee setting when funding
and scientific reputations were on the line. Hynek was well
aware of this. Remember, the University of Colorado Study was
one perfect example of this. Look what happened on the project.
Who funded it? ..... the U.S. Air Force. Does anyone else see a
slight conflict of interest here?

Colorado Project
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/condon.html
Dr. Condon Page at UFOMind
http://www.ufomind.com/people/c/condon/

7.	The lengths we have seen some radical skeptics go to
disprove the reality of UFOs (i.e. when they sometimes construct
hypotheses that don't really fit the original facts) is proof
enough to know what a person is facing when he shouts to the
world, "We have visitors and they're not from here." In other
words, you'd better darn well be able to prove it conclusively,
or else. (and rightly so for the rest of the world's sanity.)
Years ago they used to burn people at the stake. Today,
ostracism and loss of funding & reputation takes its place.

>>From the Wednesday, June 8, 1966 entry in Forbidden Science,
>Dr. James McDonald, professor of atmospheric physics at the
>University of Arizona was authorized to spend two days at Wright
>field (Blue Book Headquarters), requesting to see all cases
>attributed to "globular lightning". "He was amazed and horrified
>at what he saw: case after case that obviously had nothing to do
>with electrical discharges in the air". Next he asked to see the
>general files, "getting increasingly upset as he kept on
>reading". He realized the official explanations where
>"bull****".

JC:   Yes, but the official explanations weren't specifically
Hynek's. Hynek would submit his report to the Air Force who
would then decide what they really wanted to say about it. Hynek
told us this in his letter to Colonel Sleeper, his boss when
working at Blue Book. (Hynek, The UFO Experience, 1972) There
were periods in the Air Force's history where, for various
reasons, some legitimate some not, they just wanted to play down
the cases as if they didn't exist at all. Also, Dr. Hynek stated
in his book that they didn't let him see all of the cases (and
probably not the radar/gun camera data either). At Blue Book, he
wasn't allowed to go in and just peruse the files.  Please see
URL below. Scroll down to:

ON HYNEK's ROLE IN BLUE BOOK (GUESSING GAME PLAYED)
Appendix 4, Section A, Paragraph 9
Taken from his 1972 book, The UFO Experience
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.5a.html

>After reading the official files, later that day he confronted
>Hynek asking, "How could you remain silent so long?". Vallee
>jumped in on the side of Hynek, "If Allen had taken a strong
>position last year the Air Force would have dropped him as
>consultant and we wouldn't be here talking about the
>phenomenon". McDonald reply was, "I'm not talking about last
>year. Its in 1953 Allen should have spoken out!"

JC:   Bill, back then there were some incredible reports as
well, but unfortunately the scientific data actually available
was even less than today. I've listed one such case, "Kirtland"
under the James McDonald URLs below. Read Hynek's "The UFO
Experience" and compare other analyses by various authors and
you should understand. Any scientist will immediately realize
this.

>This is burned in my mind. The data obviously was there and the
>official explanations were bogus. Yet, Hynek did not start
>talking about this until after Blue Book was dissolved. Most
>then probably thought him a disgruntled scientist, his
>multi-decade consultant job eliminated as the result of the
>Condon Report's recommendations.

JC:   O.K., then put some salve on it and redirect your focus a
little.  :-)   It certainly wasn't all his fault. To most of us,
survival is a basic instinct. Your next paragraph should give us
all a clue regarding this. Please note, Hynek definitely
surpassed McDonald in this regard. This is not to denigrate any
of the marvelous research Dr. McDonald performed and illuminated
us with. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. A person
can be 100% right and still not survive.

>After accessing the Air Force data, McDonald spent much of the
>next 3 years studying UFOs. He spoke to the American Association
>for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting General Symposium
>in 1969 trying to convince them that the data on UFOs was being
>inadequately investigated and needed to be seriously studied.
>Yet, his words fell on deaf ears. He killed himself in the early
>70s. Some attribute his suicide to the negative effect his
>interest in UFOs had on his career .

>Perhaps while we are remembering scientists, we should remember
>Dr. John McDonald. If he were the Air Force's consultant on
>UFOs, imagine where we would be now.

JC:   BTW, that's James not John. Absolutely, this is why I
defended both these gentlemen to James Oberg when he made some
disparaging remarks concerning them while discussing Gordon
Cooper's claims. This and all the history quoted herein has been
located for the past couple of years at:
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/index.html

Yes, Dr. McDonald was definitely important. Amongst other
things, his revelations on the Kirtland AFB case interest me
greatly; especially because of other cases that occurred right
in that same time period. One of them appears below. A neighbor
of mine was dating someone from the Sebago when that incident
occurred. Because of this, I personally know the case is
legitimate and as stated.

Sebago Case (11/5/57)
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/sebago.htm

McDonald's Critique of the handling of the Condon
"Kirtland AFB Case"
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.7c.html#Anchor1323

McDonald's Own Analysis of "The Kirtland AFB Case (11/4/57)"
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.7b.html

McDonald's Credentials
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.7c.html#anchor187593

and I'd certainly be totally remiss if I didn't include Brad
Zeiler and Jean van Gemert's excellent website which includes
some important papers by James McDonald, including:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/aaas1.htm

But, just remember one thing; after McDonald died, Hynek was
still here pressing for further study in CUFOS, etc. Whatever
else one might accuse Hynek of, he was brave enough to stay the
course, amazingly without ruining his reputation, until his
death in 1986. This could only occur if he was an honest,
cautious scientist. We've seen what this topic can do to people
if they foul up. If people read the early issues of CUFOS from
the period when Hynek was alive, most will see his honesty
evident therein. He did his best to apply a proper scientific
approach to every case that appeared there. Their website
address appears below. Because of Dr. Hynek's work and the many
excellent papers and editorials I have seen published in the
CUFOS journal, I thoroughly respect that organization and the
people therein.

CUFOS.J. Allen Hynek
http://www.cufos.org/org.html


Respectfully,
Jerry Cohen