From: Isaac Koi <isaackoi.nul> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:19:22 +0100 Archived: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:41:59 -0400 Subject: Hynek's Photos - Date And Simple Info? I am currently finalising my notes for an item on Astronomers and UFOs, which mainly focuses on some of the statistical issues involved (i.e. the surveys by Sturrock, Gert Herb, Hynek and Pittella) but also includes information on a few examples of relevant sightings (including by Tombaugh, Menzel and - the reason for this email - Hynek). In the item I'm drafting, I would like to be able to provide some simple (?) data regarding Hynek's photos - including the year during which they were taken. Information about Hynek's "UFO" photos is frustratingly sparse. One of several ironies relating to these photos is that I've found it much easier to get hold of primary source material in relation to the sightings by Tombaugh and Menzel. I've included some further information and references below (including from two of Hynek's own books, Volume 1 of Vallee's journal, an article by Richard Dolan, plus emails from Timmerman of CUFOS and emails from Jenny Randles) - but that information merely highlights the frustrating lack of details (which - as mentioned below - has caused at least one researcher, Richard Dolan, to imply that Hynek was involved in some sort of conspiracy). I've been in touch with Mark Rodhegier and Mary Castner at CUFOS and they kindly responded to my query very promptly. Unfortunately, they were unable to add anything to the information I'd gathered from the meager sources summarised below. There is no relevant file within CUFOS. When CUFOS retrieved Hynek's papers and files from his widow, they looked information about these photos. But they found nothing. I know that several members of this list had considerable contact with Hynek and presumably discussed the photos with him and can add some information. Any futher information (or a copy of a sighting report form completed by Hynek...) would be most welcome. Kind Regards, Isaac Further information and references in case you are interested: A fairly good copy of one of the relevant photos by Hynek is included on the webpage below: http://dbarkertv.com/Timmerman.htm The images are ALMOST attributed by Hynek to himself in the hardcopy of "The UFO Experience". The photos appear (on the unnumbered photographic inset, opposite page 53) with the following caption: "Finally, I include two photographs, Figures 8 and 10, taken from the window of an aircraft at 30,000 feet, of an object that I have been unable to identify. Perhaps some reader can identify it as a natural object. If so, I would appreciate knowing the solution. These are two photographs for which I can absolutely vouch". Jenny Randles refers to that caption in her discussion (in her book "UFOs and How to See them" (1997) at page 135 of the Barnes & Noble hardback edition) and states that she too can vouch for them following her discussion with Hynek. Ironically (in the light of the fact that Vallee has complained that Hynek did not record the date or time of the sighting) Jenny's discussion is beneath a section entitled "Making a record". By the time he co-authored "Edge of Reality" (1975) with Vallee, Hynek appears to have become less coy. He includes the photos on an unnumbered page in the middle of the book, with this caption: "10 & 11 These photos were taken by one of the authors (Hynek) from an airliner at cruising altitude. The object was in sight long enough for the camera to be unpacked from a suitcase stored under the seat and for two exposures to be taken. This time requirement at a speed in the vicinity of mach .8 rules out many explanations." Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos has provided to me with several emails exchanged with Timmerman at CUFOS at various points since 2002 - but they provide little additional information. V-J's email to me included this quote from Timmerman's email of 29 December 2002 "In a long conversation with Jacques Vallee several years ago, I asked him if he had this information (date, etc.) and he said he had attempted to secure this from Allen and the publishers in an attempt to locate the negatives, as well. I had, in the early 1980's contacted the publishers with the same request, with the same results. " In another email, dated April 19, 2006 to V-J, Timmerman wrote: "I attempted to get access to the negatives involved from the publisher. They replied that it was not available, partly due to the time elapse between the photograph and my request, in the 1980's...During the 1980's I had a private dinner conversation with Jacques Vallee, during which we discussed these photos and he, also, had attempted to locate the negatives, with no success. My opinion is that "someone" (sic) made sure the negatives disappeared from the public domain. Allen never indicated in any way that this may have happened. I don=B4t recall if Jacques and I discussed this possibility, but I believe we both must have thought of it." Vallee discusses the photos in his "Forbidden Science", Volume 1 towards the end of the entry for Sunday 14 September 1969, Page 410 and in footnote 21. Vallee's account is summarised in the article by Richard Dolan at the link below: http://keyholepublishing.com/hynek.html Dolan's article includes the following, in which Dolan implies that he believes that Hynek's actions in relation to these photos demonstrate he was part of a cover-up (an allegation I think is rather undermined by the fact that he shared his photos with others and included some of them in two of his books... - I think his actions simply show he was not overwhelmed by his own photos...): [quote from Dolan's article at the link above] ... rumors had abounded through the 1960s that Blue Book was a public relations facade, and that there was a "secret study" of UFOs going on. Vallee, too, had his suspicions, and broached this subject with Hynek every so often. Hynek inevitably rejected such opinions without reservation. Blue Book, Hynek maintained, was the real thing, albeit a project that was being done incompetently. Vallee was never quite convinced. He noticed Hyneks cagey attitude about UFOs, that he seemed to know much more than he usually let on about the subject, that he often appeared to be more interested in self_promotion than actual study of the problem, and that his personal records were in a state of near_disaster. Then Vallee found the infamous "Pentacle Memorandum" in Hynek's office. This was a highly classified document from January 1953, proving the existence of a separate study group of UFOs, and which urged that the Robertson Panel be delayed until they had come to their own conclusions. Very strong stuff. In the mid_1960s, there was still no inkling among the wider public that there was any such study as this. On another occasion, a colleague of Vallee and Hynek showed Vallee "some very interesting photographs taken from an airplane." Here is the relevant passage: "Do you know who took these? Allen did! But he hasn't recorded the place, the date or the time ..." It turns out Allen was aboard an airliner when he suddenly noticed a white object at his altitude, seemingly flying at the same speed as the plane. He made sure it wasnt a reflection and he convinced himself it must be some faraway cloud with an unusual shape. He pulled out his camera to see how fast he could snap pictures. In all he took two pairs of stereoscopic photographs and gave it no more thought. The photographs themselves appeared in a book authored by Hynek and Vallee in 1975, The Edge of Reality. They may or may not be of a flying saucer, but they are certainly not clouds. The importance of stereoscopic photographs cannot be overemphasized. Such a camera is of outstanding evidentiary value. Hynek, in effect, had captured a possible Holy Grail on film. But what happened? Vallee continues: Fred only learned about this a few weeks later. But then Hynek had lost the negatives and one shot from every pair was missing. ... Naturally the loss of the negatives makes it impossible to determine whether it was really a cloud or not. Fred is indignant: "Sometimes I have the feeling Allen doesn't want to know," he says. Hynek, who had headed document security for the proximity fuse project, "lost" one (and only one) negative from such a set as this. One might well wonder, to whom did he actually pass this material? [/quote from Dolan's article at the link above] [quote from first email to me from Jenny Randles] Yes, I did talk to Allen about these photos whilst travelling across the US with him in 1983. But I do not recall him saying specifically when they were taken. He was clearly intrigued by the images and had kept reference to a minimum, I felt, for a number of reasons. He wanted to see if anyone could come up with a solution without them being too mixed up in a debate over the identity of the taker. Allen was aware that UFO photographs stood on their own merit and can often be deciphered using deductive techniques in a way UFO sightings, per se, cannot be as they depend inherently on the witness and their testimony. I was unaware that he had not openly documented the necessary details. He (I think) genuinely was baffled by what he had seen from that aircraft but was mindful of some unusual effect of atmospherics or optics that might be familiar to someone but that he had never come across. I recall we discussed the case of the movie footage taken on a British aircraft where the optics of the design of the window had created a seemingly detached, floating cigar shape that was both seen and filmed. So I think he was wary that some obvious answer like that which he had never come upon might be discovered. So I got the impression he had put the images 'out there' hoping someone would come up with an explanation but as of then nobody had. I also suspected that his role within UFOlogy was still the source of banter with other famed astronomers with whom he interacted beyond UFO research as he was still a professor emeritus at Northwestern. One incident came whilst we were at a diner in the mid west on route to Colorado and I discovered how James Van Allen (as in the radiation belts) had a gentle dig at Allen. He took it in good stead (Allen was a huge Monty Python fan) but I could see why he might have felt it would complicate any possible identification of what was on the photos if he championed them too openly. Image and reputation was very important to Allen and whilst I was there he turned down a lucrative TV offer to film a commercial endorsing beer because he was concerned that the beer/UFO connection would hurt the credibility of the subject. That is why I was cagey in how I chose to describe the photos. I think Allen always expected that someone might come up with the answer as to what he saw and did not want to appear to be pinning his reputation as an investigator around a case that had to be looked at by others on the merits of what the photographs themselves revealed. I could be mistaken, of course, but that is how I interpreted it back then as a young and pretty starstruck UFO enthusiast. [/quote from first email from Jenny Randles] [quote from second email to me from Jenny Randles] What I meant was that he felt that if this blob was some atmospheric or optical effect that can be filmed from an aircraft then someone in the know would recognise that from viewing the image and would not need to know the intimate details of who, what, where or why to say - hey, this is a neat photo of a Googleplex Mirage, or whatever. Allen clearly had his reasons for not wanting to go the usual route and felt that if the photos could be resolved (as I think he expected they probably would be one day) then the photos would tell the story enough to allow someone to identify the culprit. As noted we talked of other photos from aircraft where odd effects had occurred such as the one I referred to (with the aircraft tailfin distortion images). And, as I said, I had always presumed that the full details are on record at CUFOS and so the photos could be investigated by anyone who wanted to take it further if they thought they recognised what was on the pictures. Indeed I would be shocked if this were not true even if Allen had not wished to go public for his own reasons. I cannot imagine why he would not have documented the details with CUFOS in some form. Mark Rodhegier will presumably know or Jerry Clark? [/quote from second email from Jenny Randles] Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp