1966 10 21 Science - Vol 154 No 3747 - Hynek

Magazine Overview

Title: Letters
Issue Date: 21 October 1966
Character: This document is a letter to the editor, likely from a scientific publication, discussing the phenomenon of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

UFO's Merit Scientific Study

J. Allen Hynek, writing from the Dearborn Observatory at Northwestern University, addresses his scientific colleagues regarding the ongoing accumulation of UFO reports. He notes that twenty years after the initial "flying saucer" furor, reports continue to increase, prompting the Air Force to give increased scientific attention to the phenomenon. Hynek feels obligated to share his experience as a scientific consultant to the Air Force, likening it to a traveler reporting on exotic lands.

He highlights that despite the majority of reports stemming from misidentifications, his concern has grown, leading him to advocate for a meaningful scientific investigation of puzzling UFO cases by physical and social scientists. He acknowledges that UFOs have historically been met with "buffoonery and caustic banter," hindering scientific attention.

Hynek focuses on "puzzling reports," defining "hard data" as those from several responsible witnesses, lasting a reasonable time, and reported coherently. He excludes reports easily traced to conventional objects like balloons or satellites, or vague oral/written accounts.

Debunking Misconceptions About UFO Reports

Hynek systematically addresses and refutes common misstatements about UFOs:

1. "Only UFO 'buffs' report UFO's." Hynek states the opposite is true; most puzzling reports come from individuals who haven't given much thought to UFOs, not from "true believers" or convention attendees.
2. "UFO's are reported by unreliable, unstable, and uneducated people." While some such reports exist, Hynek asserts that UFOs are reported in greater numbers by reliable, stable, and educated people, with the most articulate reports coming from intelligent observers.
3. "UFO's are never reported by scientifically trained people." This is unequivocally false. Hynek states that some of the best, most coherent reports come from scientifically trained individuals, who typically request and are granted anonymity.
4. "UFO's are never seen at close range and are always reported vaguely." Hynek clarifies that his discussion of puzzling reports excludes those fitting this description, noting he has several hundred coherent reports in his files.
5. "The Air Force has no evidence that UFO's are extra-terrestrial or represent advanced technology of any kind." Hynek confirms this statement but warns against its interpretation as evidence *against* these hypotheses. He argues that as long as "unidentifieds" exist, the question remains open, and true scientific investigation has not yet been undertaken. He draws a parallel to the French Academy of Sciences dismissing "stones that fell from the sky" before meteorites were accepted.
6. "UFO reports are generated by publicity." While acknowledging that publicity can create a positive feedback loop and stimulate reports, Hynek asserts it's unwarranted to claim it's the *sole* cause of high incidence.
7. "UFO's have never been sighted on radar or photographed by meteor or satellite tracking cameras." Hynek clarifies this doesn't mean radar or cameras haven't picked up "oddities" that remained unidentified, only that these oddities were not *unidentifiable* as conventional objects.

The Need for Open-Minded Scientific Inquiry

Hynek concludes that for these reasons, he cannot dismiss the UFO phenomenon. He notes that "hard data" cases frequently mention "recurrent kinematic, geometric, and luminescent characteristics." He expresses a concern that 20th-century science might suffer from "temporal provincialism," a form of arrogance that has historically been challenged by future scientific understanding. He suggests that our current knowledge of the universe may appear limited from the vantage points of 21st or 30th-century science.

Reference:
1. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 43, 311 (1953).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The primary theme is the urgent need for a serious, scientific approach to the study of UFOs, moving beyond ridicule and misconception. The editorial stance, as represented by J. Allen Hynek's letter, is one of advocating for empirical evidence, rigorous investigation, and an open mind towards phenomena that defy conventional explanation. It critiques the historical reluctance of the scientific community to engage with such topics and calls for a more objective and less dismissive attitude.