UFO UpDates Mailing List
For a much better formatted version of this whole page,
much easier to read, click HERE.
For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
From: Jerry Cohen <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 16:59:41 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:46:53 -0500 Subject: Re: EL/TST >From: DevereuxP@aol.com >Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:56:23 -0500 (EST) >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Subject: Re: EL/TST & Galleons... >Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 12:04:28 -0500 >From: Greg Sandow <"Greg Sandow"@prodigy.net> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: EL/TST >>Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 19:48:59 -0500 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>From: "Jerry Cohen" <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Devereux - Rutkowski EL/TST >Jerry wrote: >>I believe your theory has tended to neglect the fact that many >>ufologists already mentally put these "nocturnal light" cases >>in a lesser category, in view of the fact that out of the multitude >>of cases in existence, they are _lesser detailed cases_, and >>by definition, concern amorphous, rather than, "visibly-structured" >>objects. Therefore, although your work is highly interesting >>and will probably help us become aware of certain natural phenomena >>that exist on and within our planet, its applications to UFO >>sightings per se are necessarily limited. Paul Answered: >Yes, well, I don't see it quite this way. The fact remains that >LITS are the most common type of sighting. We have to ask ourselves >what the real status of the 'structured craft' is - that's the >point. I *know* that's what ETH ufologists are most interested >in, and that's why they demote LITS, but that is a psychological >preference, nothing to do with objectivity. It is in effect a >cultural factor with these people. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JC: Paul, you are not exactly accurate here, and you did tell Greg "Thanks Greg. The devil is in the details, isn't he?" I submit the following in regard to the place of Nocturnal Lights in the grand scheme of things. It is important to remember that Hynek spent twenty years with Blue Book thinking about all this and eventually devising his classification system. Although he wasn't thinking about TST back then, and we certainly can further subdivide his original classifications, I believe the basic categories still hold true today. J.C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BRIEF SUMMARY of HYNEK CLASSIFICATIONS: Nocturnal lights: Strangely behaving lights in the night sky Daylight Discs: UFOs sighted in the daytime. Radar & Radar/visual sightings: Radar sightings and those with visual support CE l: Detailed sighting but no observable interaction with the witness or the environment. CE ll: UFO is observed interacting with the environment and frequently, the witness as well. CE lll: Basically a CE ll case where the UFO occupants make themselves known. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JC: To develop a perspective regarding TSTs and where they fit in regarding UFOs, I believe the following review of Hynek's analysis of
the Air Force's twenty year collection of UFO reports is important. REVISED BLUE BOOK STATISTICS: The following quotes are from: Hynek, J. Allen . The Hynek UFO Report . Chapt. 11 "The Air Force Numbers Game" . Dell Publishing Co, Inc. 1977 . . . The Revised Blue Book Statistics -- What Really Was Going On? A member of the staff of the Center for UFO Studies and I have comprehensively re-evaluated all the cases which comprise the ninety-four reels of microfilmed Project Blue Book records. Despite Blue Book's inadequate follow-up and investigation of the bulk of these cases, it was possible for us to form some sort of judgment as to whether or not the Air Force conclusions were, in each case, valid. In many cases we agreed with the Air Force--and in many we did not. So, let us now examine how things change when one grants the assumption that there may indeed be some sort of unidentified aerial phenomena, source and nature unknown, which may have been, for the most part, accurately reported by over sixteen thousand witnesses. ....snip.... J.C. Hynek lists the revised number of unidentifieds by year from 1947-69, totaling approximately 640. (Which worked out to about 5.8% unidentified after reexamination. Then he (Hynek) says... ....snip.... begin quote: Now let us see what kind of UFOs we are dealing with. The reader is by now well acquainted with the classification scheme utilized in this book, and it is of interest to examine the 640 revised "Unknowns" to see how they divide themselves into these classes. TABLE 11.5 -- Types of Revised Unknowns Type Number % of Unknowns Nocturnal Lights................243................38% Daylight Discs..................271................42 Radar-Visual.....................29.................5 Radar............................10.................2 Close Encounters of the first kind................46.................7 Close Encounters of the second kind...............33.................5 Close Encounters of the third kind.................8.................1 jc 6/22/2006: For information regarding an important re-evaluation
of these figures please click here and an important quote from same,
HYNEK ALSO SAYS THE FOLLOWING:
What is extremely surprising here is the great number of Daylight Disc cases reported. These cases, from Blue Book files alone, and neglecting the wealth of information from the civilian UFO organizations around the world, involve many hundreds of witnesses, the majority of them with Air Force or some other technical background (sometimes scientific). It is rather surprising that Nocturnal Lights do not lead the list, as they do in most other studies. Less surprising is the fact that far fewer "high strangeness" cases were reported to the Air Force, or to be exact, reached the Blue Book desks.* A check of cases available in the open literature, not including the unpublished files of APRO and NICAP, show that, conservatively, at least five times as many high strangeness cases did not reach the Blue Book list as did (J.C. i.e. were recorded). Probably the figure is closer to ten times the cases than five.(JC: I bolded Hynek's words above.)
Then Hynek says: I surmise that the factor was larger in the late years of Blue Book because by that time the "all is nonsense" approach of the Air Force was well known and it had become clear to the general public that reporting strange UFO events to the Air Force was not only pointless as a serious scientific matter, but was apt to bring ridicule to the reporter. * We have ample evidence, not only from the reports received by the Center for UFO Studies, which is a relatively new organization, but from the two oldest civilian UFO fact-gathering organizations, the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization and the National Investigations Committee for Aerial Phenomena, that a large number of "high strangeness" cases have, in fact, occurred-particularly Close Encounter cases of all three types. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J.C. Please remember: a) Blue Book (the Air Force) had been skewing the results to reduce the number of unknowns. That is why the reanalysis was necessary. (see following address) http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/feb/m06-011.shtml b) Additionally, these were statistics for 1949-69. Blue Book closed in 1969, almost 30 years ago. There have been many well detailed, dramatic cases since that time including the FOIA documented 1975 SAC Base visits, Walton, Moody, Pascagoula, and Belgium NATO Military Encounter 1989/90, to name just a few. Paul, when one is appraised of the preceding, it becomes obvious that those claiming that TST and "generated helmet visions" are a "major solution" to UFOs are possibly not cognizant of this portion of the data, or if they are, they are ignoring it. Again, they are, at the moment, analyzing what Hynek felt was actually less than 52% of the unidentified cases (because of the number of high strangeness cases that never reached the Air Force), they are analyzing the
lesser detailed ones at that, and yet they are claiming that those
cases cover a larger portion than they actually do. In reality, they
have a long way to go to complete their analysis properly. (And it
must be done on a specific "case by case" basis. Generalities will
not solve the problem or make it go away.) Serious UFO researchers
are certainly open to this analysis, and actually welcome it, but
only in this proper manner. Looking forward to your eventual comments on SKYTHING 1960 & Exeter and how they relate to your theories. You mentioned in a note to me that you don't have the time to comment on these specific cases and how your theories relate to them. This is certainly unfortunate for the reasons mentioned above. Again, those addresses are: Exeter 1/2 http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jan/m26-010.shtml Exeter 2/2 http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jan/m26-008.shtml SKYTHING 1960 is archived at: http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.2.html Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cohen E-mail: "Jerry Cohen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If anyone else is interested, here are some additional Hynek comments on Nocturnal lights followed by a detailed look at his UFO classification system. The following quote from Hynek, J. Allen . The UFO Experience . Henry Regnery Co. 1972 . Part II: The Data and the Problem . 5 Nocturnal Lights . . . REGARDING NOCTURNAL LIGHTS: It should be clearly understood that initial light-in-the-night-sky reports have a very low survival rate. An experienced investigator readily recognizes most of these for what they are: bright meteors, aircraft landing lights, balloons, planets, violently twinkling stars, searchlights, advertising lights on planes, refueling missions, etc. When one realizes the unfamiliarity of the general public with lights in the night sky of this variety, it is obvious why so many such UFO reports arise. Of course, such trivial cases do not satisfy the definition of UFO used in this book. ....... -------------------------------------- The following quotes from: Hynek, J. Allen . The Hynek UFO Report . Chapt. 2 . =B63 . Dell Publishing Co, Inc. 1977 HYNEK'S UFO CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (in depth) Begin quote: A number of years ago I devised a simple classification system, much like an astronomer might use to classify different types of stars or a zoologist different types of beetles that he came across in his explorations. NOCTURNAL LIGHTS: Since the most frequently reported sighting are those of strangely behaving lights in the night sky, I called these simply, Nocturnal Lights. This doesn't include just any lights that puzzle the observer (many people are puzzled by bright planets, twinkling stars, and aircraft at night), but those which are truly puzzling, even to experts, because their behavior does not fit the pattern of lights from known sources. One must always keep in mind that the "U" in UFO simply means "unidentified" -- but unidentified to all, not just to the witnesses. (J.C. obviously an important point.) DAYLIGHT DISCS: Then there are the UFOs sighted in the daytime. Since the majority (but not all) of these have an oval shape and are often reported as metallic-looking, these are simply called Daylight Discs. Most UFO photographs made in the daytime portray such discs (see p. 95). It could be that Nocturnal Lights observed in the daytime would appear as Daylight Discs -- we don't know. But observationally the distinction is useful. RADAR & RADAR-VISUAL SIGHTINGS: A separate category is also needed for UFOs that are indicated by radar. An important subdivision in this category are radar findings that are supported by visual observations. If it can be established with reasonable assurance that a radar sighting confirms a visual sighting, or vice versa, then obviously this sighting is of major importance. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS: A broad category of utmost importance consists of those UFO sightings, regardless of type, that occur very close at hand, say within a few hundred feet, or at least close enough so that the witness is able to use his stereoscopic vision and discern considerable detail. These sightings are, so to speak, in the immediate reference frame of the observer -- they are not "someone else's UFO," but very much this observer's UFO, a sort of very personal UFO experience. I have termed this broad category of UFOs the Close Encounters. There are three obvious kinds of Close Encounters, and it will be helpful to define them separately. Again, the distinction lies in what is observed rather than in any certain fundamental difference. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE FIRST KIND (CE l) Here we have a close encounter with a UFO but there is no interaction of the UFO with either the witness or the environment, or at least none that is discernible. The encounter must be close enough, however, so that the UFO is in the observer's own frame of reference and he is able to see details. The chance, therefore, of this sighting being a misidentification of Venus or a conventional aircraft, etc., is quite small, particularly if the sighting is made by several persons. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE SECOND KIND (CE ll) Here the UFO is observed interacting with the environment and frequently with the witness as well. The interaction can be with inanimate matter, as when holes or rings are made on the ground, or with animate matter, as when animals are affected (sometimes becoming aware of the presence of the UFO even before human witnesses). People too, can be affected, as in the many reported cases of burns, temporary paralysis, nausea, conjunctivitis, etc. But in order for a CE-ll to have taken place, the presence of the UFO must be established at the same spot in which the physical effects are noted. That is, if a burnt ring on the ground is noted, it must be at the exact place where the UFO was sighted hovering, or if an automobile ignition system is interfered with, such interference must have occurred at the time and place of the UFO sighting. The observed physical effects in these cases (often called "physical trace cases") must not be explainable in some other obvious way. That is, if holes in the ground ("landing marks") are found, these marks must be unique, and not like marks found elsewhere in the vicinity. Close Encounters of the Second Kind are of particular interest to scientists who can, in a sense, bring the UFO "into the laboratory." Burnt grasses, samples of disturbed soil, etc., can be tested with a view toward determining what caused the burn, what pressures were necessary to produce the imprints on the ground, and to finding what chemical changes occurred in the soil samples by comparing the affected soil with control samples from the vicinity. To this day, no "piece" of an actual UFO has ever been authenticated but the effects of the presence of UFOs have been amply attested to. A catalogue of over eight hundred cases in which the UFO was both seen and left physical traces has been compiled by Mr. Ted Phillips* and the catalogue continues to grow. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (CE lll) Here there is not only a close encounter with the UFO, but with its apparent "occupants" or "UFOnauts." Close Encounters of the Third Kind bring us to grips with the most puzzling aspect of the UFO phenomenon: the apparent presence of intelligence other than our own, intelligence we can recognize but not understand. Hundreds of Close Encounters of the Third Kind have been reported all over the world in the past decades. A catalogue of over one thousand cases has been compiled by Bloecher; it, like other UFO catalogues, continues to grow. UFOs of other categories seem to demonstrate intelligent action. Certainly this action does not appear to be random, but seems almost programmed or planned. As reported, UFOs buzz airplanes and cars, prefer the lonely hours of the night, usually but by no means exclusively avoid crowds and urban areas, and make singularly "local" appearances rather than moving about a wide area of the country. In Close Encounters of the Third Kind, where the occupants make their presence known, we find reported creatures who resemble humans but are predominantly shorter and slimmer, capable of communication in their own way and on their own terms. Their interaction with humans has be reported to be largely impersonal, neither overtly friendly nor hostile. There have been instances, reported in all seriousness, of "abductions" of humans, ostensibly for "testing purposes." The details of such abductions have almost always been obtained through regressive hypnosis since it appears that the abduction experience, whatever its physical reality, has proved so traumatic to the witness or witnesses that the conscious memory retains only a mere skeleton of the total experience. The details must generally be obtained from the subconscious. Clearly, Close Encounters of the Third Kind hold the most fascination for us because they bring into focus most sharply our fear of the unknown, the concept of other intelligence in space, and the possibility of intelligent contact with such beings, with all that such contact might imply for the human race. For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
Click here Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - email@example.com
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last name to firstname.lastname@example.org
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page.
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is
not responsible for content. Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: email@example.com
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.