◆ SpookStack

Desens Vek cA Neo. 974-7 aot ty Ot ates tay wating Boe <c Stu y g CCN Sta furo over wEO's suucern? ih. e s UAUC LG ace u has wow . momenon. LF se. under some oc Heation 00 eon rt my scientific co!- leagecs, who coud not be expected to keen wo whh so seemingly biza a fiend, aae gis. of my in “nionitoring tac ie experience noise lieve.” OVE Ime yoars consulian. oo the sic Sorce. ing so. OM o uk dike a tre tO CXO0g es few faraway places, who visch.. > A. obligation tc iose wha sin face by telling them ofr tie own. vous of the natives, Di on. period of associa- seports of strange things expected that each lull receipt of reports signaled the end of the cvisode, only to see the wclivity focese: the past two years it a new high. Despre . the great ma- jority Of 6, a t.suned from misiden- tification: vise familiar things, my own oo 0 of xd sense of per- sonal respons: li. Save increased and caused me ts afi. whe initiation of a tion WHE ie im the meaningful ere investigation of the residuc mn, : UFO cases by physical a... soci. scientists. I have guardedly » cd .his suggestion in the literature and at various official hearings, out with little success. UFO was a term that called forth buffoon- ery and caustic banter; this was bow. a cause and un effecr of the lack o. scientific attention. I speak here caty of the puzzling reports; there os a. soint tO concern OUrScives WIT ve ports that can be easi, traced to 3. satellites, und any poiat to wake accous. oc. oral or cawritien hOONns, is there vague contain ApprovedhFor- Release 2001/04/02°<'CrA:R “hard made by. sev- onty be concerned with efined here as reports, cS teTs ote eral responsib'z witnesses, which Jasted a reasonable length of time and which were reported in a coherent manner. I have strongly urged the Air Force to ask physical und social scientists of stature to make a respectable, scholar- ly study of the UFO phenomenon. of sightings Now that the first firm steps have been taken toward such a study, I can set forth something of what ] have Jearned. vurticulariy as it relates to frequen, made misstatements about UFO's. Some of these state- | ments which lead to misconceptions are: 1) Only UFO “buffs” report UFO's. The exact opposite is much nearer the truth. Oniy a negligible handful of reports submitted to the Air Force are from the “true believers,” the same who attend UFO conventions and who are members of “gee-whiz” groups. It has been my experience that quite generally the truly puzzling reports come from people who have not given much or any thought to UFO’s. 2) UFO's ure reported by able, unstable, and ple. This is. of unreli- uneducated peo- course, true. But UFO’s are reported in even greater numbers by vehable, stable, and edu- cated peopic. The most articulate re- ports come from obviously intelligent observers; dullurds rarely overcome their inheren: inertia toward making written reporis. 3) UFO’s are reported by scientifically trained people. This. is unequivocally false. Some of the very best, most coherent reports have come from scientifically trained people. “It is true that scicntists are reluctant to make a public veport. They also usu- wily request asonymity which is al- ways granted. 4) UFO's are at close range and are a yvays reported vaguely. When we speak of the body of puzzling never never seen fit the above descriptio my files several hundred reports which ‘or satellite statement is not equivalent to saying. ‘century science, from Ww... vee For Rdeasé 2001/04/02 : CIA- RDP81R00560R000100010003- 8 are fine brain tcasers and could easily be made the subject of profitable dis- cussion among physical and social sci-’ Oo f 7 eintists alixe. Air Force fas thar GFO's are exiru- uo evidence cerrestrial or rep- resent advanced teciinoloyy of any kind. This is a true staternent but is widely interpreted to mea. that there is evidence against t.. two Aypotheses. As long as there w. “Usicentfieds,” the question must <ovicusly remain open. If we knew wha: ihey were, they would no longer bc UFO’s— they would be IFC’s, Tdesn.Ned Fly- ing oes if you know ine answer beforehand, it isn’t vesearcn. No truly scientific investigation of the UFO phe- nomenon has ever been undertaken. Are we making the same mis:ake the French Academy of Scien made when they dismissc&é storics Gi “stones that fell from the say”? Finally, how- ever, meteorites were mace respectabic in the eyes of science. 6) UFO reports «re generated by publicity, One cannot deny that there is a positive feedoack, a stimulated emission of repo when sightings are widely publiciz but it is un- warranted to asser: inat this is the sole cause of high gence of UFO re- ports. ‘ 7) UFO's have iever been sighted on radar or photographed by meteor tracking cameras. This that radar, meteor cameras, and satel- lite tracking stations have not picked up “oddities” on. their scopes or films that have remained unidentified. It has been lightly assumec that although un- identified, the odcities were not un- identifiable as conve..cional objects. For these reason. cannot dismiss the UFO phenomenon with a shrug. The “hard data” cases quent allusions to recurren. kinematic, geometric, and luminescent characteris- tics. I have begun io feel that there is a tendency in | 20th-century science to forget that these wil) So a 2Ist- century science, aia inde... a 30th- L. vantage points our-knowlecze of the universe may appear quite cifferen:. We suffer, perhaps, from termsoral ;.covincialism, a form of arrog.ace the, has always irritated posterity. J. ALLEN HYNEK Dearborn Observaiory, Northwestern University, Evanston, Hlinois 60201 PS 1RUY560R000100040003-8 1. J. Opt. Soc. Amer: 43, 3414 (495%). contain fre-. nen ee eeiemnereererneliiiaensrsircenaniadiiaialll