Page last updated: March 8, 2013 9:30 PM
Click scale above to go to site full-index
- Click title below to center page with title at top -
1) J. Allen Hynek was the main civilian scientist, hired by the Air Force, to debunk UFO cases to the public. (N.B. He started out as a complete skeptic.) Hynek found that a certain percentage of them refused his best efforts. His tenure in this job kept him very close to the Air Force data for approximately 20 years.
Dr. J. Allen Hynek - His life and a few of his accomplishments
Hynek page at UFOMind, California USA
Quotes from Hynek that show his evolution over the years
2) Walter Webb, astronomer, became interested in UFOs after having a sighting of his own back in 1951. He also worked with Hynek on project "Moonwatch" in the late 1950's. Webb says the Baker-Nunn network did pick up anomalous trails in their later photos. Hynek described them as "oddities."
Comments from Walter Webb, Charles Hayden Planetarium, Boston
3) Hynek discovered cases in "Blue Book" that indicated that UFOs deserved to be studied in depth. (Discovered from a 20 year study for the Air Force.) Some cases described flight characteristics and behaviors that still mystify military personnel familiar with the world's various aircraft.
Navy Case from "Blue Book" files - Hynek
4) Here are two cases investigated by both Hynek and atmospheric scientist Dr. James McDonald. Their data indicated it was not impossible that some UFOs may well be advanced "craft," perhaps not of this earth. "Kirtland" was triple-analyzed by Project Blue Book the Condon Study and Dr. McDonald (University of Arizona).
Incident at Redlands, California (4 Feb 68) - Hynek
Analysis of "Kirtland" (11/4/57) by Dr. James McDonald
(see: Oberg/Cooper 7b & 7c)
McDonald's Critique of the Condon Committee
Evaluation of "Kirtland"
Hynek uses Kirtland case to demonstrate
need for further study
5) Looking a little more closely at Hynek's time spent as civilian scientific consultant to the Air Force and what he had to say about it, we find that Hynek eventually concluded that the Air Force's study of UFOs, "Project Blue Book", was actually a "non-study." His testimony to same provided here:
Hynek letter to Colonel Sleeper takes us INSIDE Blue Book
What Hynek found when he reanalyzed the Blue Book cases
Earthlight's author Paul Devereaux seemed unaware of Hynek's reanalysis of USAF Blue Book cases, at least until after the fact. ..As stated way back in the 1980's, A. Hendry's analysis of the reports received at the Center for UFO Studies over two years showed that nearly 90 percent were identifiable. .(This includes daylight disk and nocturnal lights) .Breaking down the final 10% is where the problem lies. Paul's work is within the 90%. (actually, substantially below that) (Also see #15 this page)
Hynek also stated the Blue Book numbers are significantly different if one takes into account 1) how the AF arrived at their final case determinations and 2) the large number of high strangeness cases that were never turned into Blue Book, but were turned into the civilian UFO groups due to the AF "ridicule" factor. (Hynek: "There are actually 5 - 10 times more high-strangeness cases than we realize.")
Author's note: However, as previously indicated, Blue Book did accumulate important data.
There has been another update to that initial data performed by researcher Brad Sparks in which he states there may be as many as 4000 unexplained ufo cases miscatergorized by USAF. Scientist James McDonald similarly stated in 1968 at his CASI lecture that from his review of BB cases he estimated that 30-40% of 12,000 cases were Unexplained, or about 3,600 to 4,800. These are mostly military cases and many involve radar.
6) Conclusions of the Colorado Study: Further research informs us that the conclusions reached by Edward Condon in the Colorado Study (an Air Force sponsored civilian university study of UFOs) were actually erroneous. Although Condon had found "against" UFOs being worthy of further study, the case data from the study had actually found an even _greater_ number of unknowns than the Air Force was claiming at the time. (see #6 in McDonald Critique)
We also have testimony from Richard Hall that the Condon Colorado Study ignored specific data that it had in its possession; data available back then which proved beyond reasonable doubt that some UFOs were not just some fanciful stories fabricated by hoaxers, the press, etc. Here are Hall's own words from a paper he wrote.
University of Colorado UFO Project (11/66-11/68)
7) Interestingly, we also discover that Hynek and McDonald were not the only ones to disagree with the conclusions of the Colorado (Condon) Report.
Science groups who disagreed with
the Condon conclusions and why
** Why NICAP disagreed **
Why Dr. McDonald disagreed
Why Hynek disagreed
Hynek Article Regarding Condon Report
A side note: A skeptical explanation for UFOs offered by Professor Donald Menzel: Menzel's Mirage Theory of UFOs (and cited by the Condon Committee) - was mentioned by Dr. Hynek as being easily refuted by an Air Force study:
Mirage Hypothesis Proposed to Explain UFOs
However, the Hypothesis Proves Untenable
8) THE STANFORD STUDY: Almost thirty years after the Colorado Condon Study, serious study of the "Rockefeller Report" by a committee from Stanford University, headed by Peter A. Sturrock, and which included presentations by ufologists concerning updates to various facets of the phenomena, with awareness of various additional information discussed at the following link,
** Concerning the re-evaluation - Cohen **
leads the committee to revise Edward Condon's original "closed-minded" Colorado Project finding:
"further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby"
In light of the above and hearing all additional testimonies offered regarding the phenomena, other studies performed, etc., the Sturrock committee, in 1997, now found it prudent to say:
"...it would be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations."
The committee also said:
"The best prospect for achieving a meaningful evaluation of relevant hypotheses is likely to come from the examination of physical evidence."
Some Articles concerning the Stanford Study
ABC Article on the Stanford Study
Sturrock Book (The UFO Enigma)
Sturrock Analysis of the Condon Study
Commentary by Bernhard Haisch, "Journal of Scientific Exploration"
Journal of Scientific Exploration Home Page
9) What was found from FOIA lawsuits? Back in the 1970's, Peter Gersten, lawyer for CAUS (Citizens Against UFO Secrecy), filed a freedom of information (FOIA) lawsuit against a number of government offices. Numerous documents were eventually released by the government and received by December of 1978.
Found in those releases were various agency discussions concerning UFO cases including visits of "unknowns" to SAC Air Force bases in 1975. Also discussed was a well-detailed 1976 incident between a UFO and an Iranian F-4 fighter plane.
jc 10/10/2008: IMPORTANT BULLETIN) The above 1976 case is now more than simply hearsay from released FOIA documents. One of the previously documented Iranian pilots, Parviz Jafari - now a retired General - is part of an extremely impressive group of personnel from several countries who testified regarding their own personal UFO cases at the Washington D.C., USA Press Club less than a year ago, in November 2007. (Jafari video at UTube as long as they keep it there.) Click HERE to see the rest of the video concerning this important development.
A newspaper article provided at this next link details that Iranian case (amongst others). Brad Sparks, cofounder of CAUS and prime consultant on the FOIA lawsuits against the CIA & NSA, wrote me to correct some of the information in the Washington Post article.
Newsday/Washington Post Article
(with hyperlinked corrections by Brad Sparks)
10) Out of that same lawsuit, more documents were released and received by 1981 reaffirming those cases and mentioning others including a 1978 UFO flyover of a Kuwait oil pumping station in which a shutdown and restarting of the auto-protected pumps were apparently initiated by the UFO.
That same year, Peter Gersten released an article detailing those releases and what he felt was the significance of the lawsuit and its resulting public information.
Peter Gersten Article
Book Concerning Same (1984, L. Fawcett & B. Greenwood)
11) Regarding CUFOS (Center for UFO Studies - the organization formed in 1973 and led by Dr. J. Allen Hynek until his death in 1986): From his many years of study regarding UFOs, Hynek eventually became a "qualified" believer and a strong advocate for serious study of the topic. This author having subscribed to and carefully read CUFOS journals for a number of years, has personally found it to be a most important, serious, scientific research organization. CUFOS continues, to this day, to work towards a scientific resolution to the UFO enigma via various projects, analyses, etc., and continues down the path originally charted by Dr. Hynek and associates.
Brief synopsis of CUFOS
Direct link to CUFOS web site
12) Regarding NICAP (National Investigations Committe on Aerial Phenomena 1956-1980, led by Major Donald E. Keyhoe for many years): Included here is a presentation of some information regarding the original NICAP. Also delineated therein is the formation of a relatively "new NICAP" web site (Francis Ridge site coordinator) and its important role in modern ufology which began sometime around March/April 1998.
Brief information regarding both the "original"
and "new" NICAP
Richard Hall's work and his importance to Ufology
(UFOMind, CA., USA)
There is an updated version of Hall's "The UFO Evidence"
Where one can obtain it
A direct link to the "new NICAP" web site
13) Some other personal findings of this author: Thinking about Cooper's claim of a UFO landing at Edwards AFB in May 1957, approximately six months before Kirtland my attention returned to the three 1957 cases, two of which I was positive were verified realities. I knew that Blue Book, Condon and McDonald had verified Kirtland. Additionally, to my utter amazement, a neighbor of mine was dating someone from the Sebago when that case occurred, so I also knew it wasn't just something the papers made up. I decided to look closer at the dates I had for these events. The cases below are listed with the dates I originally thought were correct:
Sebago (11/6/57) - Stokes (11/6 or 7/57) - Kirtland (11/4/57)
But to my surprise, these cases were surrounded by a virtual flood of cases which occurred at almost the exact same time, and:
Jan Aldrich from Project 1947 tells me I was wrong,
my three cases above were hours, not days apart.
additionally, another case delineated by Gordon Cooper which he claims also occurred in 1957
Gordon Cooper: National Enquirer Article
Think I'm really out of line for using anything
from the National Enquirer"? Read this.
14) Here is some data from the Kirtland, Sebago & Stokes cases, plus data from two previously displayed cases ("Navy 5/65" & "Redlands 2/68"), which indicates, at least to me that at the minimum, the information submitted by astronaut Gordon Cooper to U.N. hearings, November 1978 concerning his 1951 UFO sightings is most probably truthful and accurate. He was familiar with "state of the art aircraft" from various countries. Why would a man in Cooper's position become involved with anything like this back then unless he believed it 100%?
15) Earthlights and TST (Tectonic Strain Theory): Here are some discussions with one of its major proponents which more than adequately demonstrate that the "Earthlights" explanation for UFOs will most likely be incapable of explaining approximately 10% of cases unsolved by Hynek and the Condon Committee. (Percentage pointed out by atmospheric scientist James McDonald in his analysis of same.) N.B. The 10% includes various CE [close encounter] II and III cases as well as upper atmospheric ones. It is also highly unlikely that Michael Persinger's neurological work concerning the electromagnetic stimulation of hallucinations in humans will have much impact upon this area. There are just too many cases where people reporting these things are not anywhere near an EMF stimulus and where too many independent witnesses in the same case are having the *exact same* detailed "hallucination."
Discussions with Paul Devereux
archived at my web site
I cited two specific cases as a minuscule sampling of the types of cases which do not fit his hypothesis:
- Sky Thing (occurred 1960)
- Exeter, N.H. - "Blue Book" version - Hynek (1/2)
- Exeter, N.H. - "Blue Book" version - Hynek (2/2)
Paul refused to look at them.
16) Here is a demonstration that simplistic explanations such as "fire balloons released by hoaxers" are incapable of solving that 1965 Exeter, New Hampshire series of sightings. This group of sightings has defied researchers' best attempts to find a reasonable solution for same.
- A researcher claims he has solved Exeter
Site moved here (Exeter is now missing! jc 4/18/2010: Now replaced by another version.)
- My analysis says his "Fire Balloon"
explanation is "full of hot air"
(It also proves one must take the rest of Robinson's "research?" with a large grain of salt.)
The "ball lightning" explanation proposed by Philip Klass, debunker of UFO claims for many years, is also inadequate.
17) 1989/90 Belgium NATO sightings: Here is some specific data regarding same (N.B. actually only one selected case out of 632 reports) which unequivocally demonstrates that, what the Belgium Air Force felt was an intelligently guided "something" was chased by jet aircraft for 75 minutes, captured on radar and gun camera film, exhibited flight behavior well in excess of that which our present day aircraft are capable and produced no sonic booms. The case impressed the upper echelon of the Belgium NATO military enough for them to bring it to the public's attention.
Note: This data appears to be supportive of some of Hynek's & McDonald's hypotheses. Although black projects are being considered, the data appears well in-excess of what we are capable at this time.
NIDS August 2004 findings concerning their study regarding Triangular UFO reports. (Pull browser window from left to center text - Have patience, sometimes this is slow loading.)
The previous sighting was witnessed by police on the ground. Numerous reports from various Belgium sightings detailed triangular craft with white lights on three corners and a pulsing red light in the center which, in some of the reports, detached itself from the main craft. These testimonies were given by both gendarmes and ordinary citizens.
jc 10/10/2008: Important Bulletin #2) Wing Commander (at the time of the reported event) of the Belgium Air Force Wing, Major General (retired) Wilfried DeBrouwer , is part of the group (previously mentioned) who testified at the Washington, D.C. USA Press Club in November 2007. (De Brower testimony in English begins a little past midway of the video for as long as stays at UTube. DeBrouwer interview in original language.)
18a) Illinois, USA 2000 (Also of great interest): Although other sightings have been claimed in the United States, NIDS (National Institute of Discovery Science - pdf file) has verified the existence of a fully documented case of a triangular craft(s) witnessed by a number of police in Illinois, USA (January 2000) and has disagreed with a proposed solution for same by a prominent science skeptic. NIDS is a privately funded organization composed of serious-minded, well-educated individuals, retired police officers, and includes Edgar Mitchell, sixth man to walk on the moon.
Do we honestly believe what was seen in this case is the planet Venus or a hoax? If this object is not what it appears to be, exactly what is it and who on earth owns these craft? Why are there other similar military-verified cases to this? Is this sighting connected in any way with the Belgium sightings? If it is not a military "black project," what is your solution? Would they be testing it over civilian population? Why do similar cases from the past, having no adequate explanation after thorough investigation and analysis, continue to baffle researchers throughout the world?
Bulletin: As mentioned previously, in August/Sept. 2004, NIDS revised it's findings on the triangles and has said their statistical analysis of three independent databases has demonstrated that they " cannot say whether these are US Air Force aircraft. We simply don't know . . . But it does not appear to be consistent with the covert patterns of deployment we saw with the F-17 and B-2 prior to their acknowledgement. This is open, even brazen. (Use this or this if link fails) . . . 'neither the agenda nor the origin of the Flying Triangles are currently known.' "
After one carefully examines some of the military-verified, etc. cases I've presented, it is not difficult to see why some researchers are gathering and examining data concerning various animal mutilation (information in index) and "claimed abduction" cases which some think could possibly be related to same. They are also looking into the possibility that perhaps some percentage of these people might not be either crazy, hoaxing, lying or merely looking for publicity or attention.
18b) Iranian AF Jet Encounter 1976: The descriptions by various Belgium sightings witnesses are eerily similar in some respects to those of a previous military case occurring in 1976 in Tehran, Iran. That particular case was noted in FOIA data and further verified as being discussed within and between various governmental agencies. As stated previously, important witnesses have come forth to testify regarding this.
18c) Possibility of a DSP (Defense Satellite Program) verification: Although a DSP verification was claimed for the Iranian case, it was countered by UFO researchers who presented evidence there just wasn't conclusive proof from the available data. Click the following for the reasons these researchers disagreed with the claimed verification.
Arguments Against Verification
from Brad Sparks (ex CAUS official)
and Jan Aldrich (Project 1947)
19) Ramifications from the CAUS split between the basically conservative Barry Greenwood and lawyer Peter Gersten, who has decided to "run the ball" with what he's got, refocuses our collective attention. Gersten, who has appeared inactive in the proceedings of CAUS for the past 18? years apparently wasn't as inactive as we thought. Evidentally he has joined forces with Steven Greer's Disclosure Project and "someone" (Gersten? Greer?) has been out gathering videotaped direct UFO witness testimonies given by various government personnel, derived from names noted in a number of FOIA documents accrued via lawsuits. They are trying to bring this to congress and ask for hearings.
When one again considers the thoroughly verified sightings documented at this web site, it is not impossible this move on their part could turn out to be extremely important, however, only time will tell its true significance.
20) Addendum regarding Dr. Hynek as a proposed "cloak and dagger" figure: Here is some solid historical evidence that demonstrates it is most unlikely that Hynek, as has been claimed by some people, was a "mole" for the Air Force or the CIA.
Anyone who still believes this about Hynek should definitely click below and ask themselves why
1) a person in that supposed role would have written the things he did in the following Newsweek and Post articles, and
2) why people that worked closely with him never got even a hint of Hynek's supposed clandestine activity.
Was J. Allen Hynek a Mole for the CIA? - J. Cohen
Discussion Re: Richard Dolan's View of J. Allen Hynek
as a Super-Secret Mole for the CIA - J. Cohen
Hynek 10/10/66 Newsweek Article
Hynek 12/17/66 Saturday Eve. Post Article.1
Hynek 12/17/66 Saturday Eve. Post Article.2
Summary 12/17/66 Hynek S.E. Post Article
What Hynek Had to Say Personally
Concerning Working for the U.S. Air Force
on Project Blue Book - Dennis Stacy 1985 Interview
(please click here if not available)
Jerome Clark re Hynek_1
Jerome Clark re Hynek_2
Hall and Clark re Hynek
21) Jimmy Carter's claimed 1969 UFO sighting: My summation of and response to several UFOMind discussions regarding same, and a comparison with a sighting of my own which occurred approximately two years earlier.
Summation & response to discussions re 1969 Carter sighting
22) Brazil - A startling development: In May 2005, the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) decided to release it's files concerning UFOs and has admitted it has been studying them since 1954. They do not know where they are from but they are convinced they are real.
Article concerning the release
Update to same released in 2009
This researcher believes, when the over-all evidence and counter-evidence is reviewed and taken in context with other existing military cases, there is certainly enough solid evidence to say that at least _some_ of the UFOs reported are 100% legitimate, extremely technologically advanced, and not from anywhere we can pin down. I believe a solid case has been made in this regard on this website.
NB: OPEN CHALLENGE TO ALL SKEPTICAL GROUPS TO DISPROVE THIS.
TO JAMES OBERG'S ARTICLE
Rebuttal Table of Contents
The Oberg/Cooper rebuttal(s)
*** My Comments Concerning Jim Oberg's
Criticism of these Rebuttals ***
Author's Select Cases
Questions and Answers
web site Hyper-linked Master Index
Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org