"I have proved an alien UFO landed on earth, claims scientist

[Christopher O'Brien]

Article HERE:

By Jon Austin/Express.co.uk

A chemist claims to have proved an alien spacecraft landed on earth, after investigating a perplexing case for nearly 40 years. Dr Erol Faruk has published the findings of his investigation into a substance left on the ground after a famous UFO sighting in a book which has concluded extraterrestrial activity is the only explanation.

In self-published work, The Compelling Scientific Evidence for UFOs, the British-born chemist of Turkish heritage, examined in detail the Delphos UFO case seen in Kansas, USA, on the evening of November 2 1971.
It is considered by some alien investigators as one of the most compelling UFO cases on record - due to the scorched ring left in the ground - allegedly when the UFO landed.

The witness was Ron Johnson, 16, who was tending sheep on his family's farm with dog Snowball, at about 7pm, when he spotted a six to eight feet diameter mushroom-shaped UFO appearing in the night sky. It was described as having multi-colored lights, and hovering about 75 feet away among trees at just a few feet above ground. It then ascended with a blinding light.

He alerted his parents who saw it disappearing from view. But, the family found a glowing ring on the ground where it had landed, and a similar material on trees nearby. The family said the glow "felt strange, like a slick crust, as if the soil was crystallised," and Mrs Johnson was left with a numbing anesthetic sensation on her hand after touching it.

Samples of soil, which was said to have a profound water repellant nature from within the ring were sent for analysis and stored in a number of laboratories. [Including Dr. Phyllis Budinger a recent guest on The Paracast.]

Another witness also came forward, a Lester Ensbarger from Minneapolis, who advised Deputy Sheriff Leonard Simpson that at 7.30 pm the same night, he saw a bright light descending in the sky in Delphos.

According to website ufocasebook.com: "The experience of Ron Johnson is still considered as one of the best documented 'ground trace' UFO cases of the past century, and is still unexplainable by any conventional or earthly means." Dr Faruk, who admits to a lifelong interest in the UFO phenomenon, focussed his work on investigating the chemical make up of the soil from the ring. He was able to obtain some of the stored solid after requesting it while based at Nottingham University.

He wrote: "Placing water onto the affected soil was very like placing it onto a glass surface, with the water spontaneously forming into droplets sitting on the surface."

Although, he remained unable to fully identify the soil compound, he claimed to detect "a highly water-soluble organic compound which is potentially chemiluminescent”.This could have been responsible for the alleged glow seen at the time, he said.

Dr Faruk concluded there were three possible explanations - a hoax, the ring was in fact a fairy ring - a natuarlly occurring ring of toadstools, or a genuine alien space ship had been seen.

He said a hoax was unlikely due to the unusual characteristics of the compound, and its elongation towards the wind direction on the night. He also ruled out a fungal ring, claiming the "water-soluble alkali metal salt of an organic carboxylic acid" found in the compound would not be produced by a fungi. This, he said meant the conclusion of a genuine UFO sighting was the most favorable. He wrote: "A picture begins to emerge as to what possibly happened that evening.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Such an amazing case. Here’s the last section of the article that Chris posted above:

"The hovering object of presently unknown origin appears to have contained within its periphery an aqueous solution of an unstable compound whose likely sole function would be light emission.

"Some of the solution was deposited into the ground while the object positioned itself under a tree (to possibly avoid observation from the air).

"Once enough of this solution was deposited, the object departed after which the Johnson family approached the ring area."

The book is based largely on a scientific research paper Dr Faruk wrote for publication in a number of scientific journals, but his publication was rejected.

Dr Faruk claims that although his report deals with "physical and chemical evidence" as required, he was told it was investigating an "inappropriate" subject matter.​

And here’s Dr. Phyllis Budinger’s 1999 soil analysis report, which built on Dr. Erol Faruk’s research paper (gotta love The Black Vault):

“Analysis of Soil Samples Related to the Delphos, Kansas November 2, 1971 CE2 Event”
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf

 

[marduk]

I think it's evidence something happened.

But just because we're not smart enough to figure out what it was, doesn't mean it's proof a UFO landed. That kind of language really triggers an immune response in the skeptical community.

 

[DROBNJAK]

All the respect to Ted Philips and his painstaking research over the last 30-40 years and his library of 4,000 samples.

But Mark Rodeghier's graph, is scientifically speaking, much stronger evidence that UFOs are here. 440 independent witnesses, separated by space in 7 countries and and separated by time from 1908 to 1981 (before internet existed ;-). Even more so because none of the witnesses knew that Mark Rodeghier's will do a statistical study on their distance estimates.

Mark Rodeghier's statistical graph very well fits inverse square law, which is the way all the magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational fields decay with distance.

Mark Rodeghier's graph is impossible to fake, or for that matter to debunk, in any conceivable way. There was no way for 440 people from all over the globe, of which some died before others were born, to agree on car engine cut-off distances, and make distances to line up and produce inverse square law.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I think it's evidence something happened.

But just because we're not smart enough to figure out what it was, doesn't mean it's proof a UFO landed. That kind of language really triggers an immune response in the skeptical community.

That's a standard problem. No highly technical or scientific situation can be resolved without technical or scientific knowledge. Common sense has its own huge limitations and at some point a specialist's common sense needs to take over. One wouldn't venture into a heart transplant, armed only with a common sense, neither one would get far creating artificial intelligence engine just based on non-specialist common sense notions.

For anybody with scientific background these two diagrams are all the scientific evidence that is needed to prove that UFOs are constantly visiting us.

The original project "Blue Book" concluded that 21.5% of cases can not be explained by ordinary means. If that value was bellow 5% any scientist would reject hypothesis. Any value above 5%, like 21.5%, would mean that hypothesis is valid. Practically on the day one "Blue Book" had proven that UFOs are here. This same method is used every day in medicine to test drugs that save lives.

This is another much less known proof, that would please any scientist, produced after an extensive study of 448 cases in MUFON's database, by Mark Rodeghier. Diagram shows number of stalled car engines as a function of distance from UFO. This diagram closely matches inverse square law, which is the mathematical law governing falling of the field's strength with distance.

In short, car engines near UFOs stalled at a same rate at which EM field strength changes. Since 448 cases came from 7 countries, and spanned over 70 years, it would be impossible to fake or simply be cultural influence.

But, there is plenty of physical evidence, coming from all kind of directions. Derrel Sims, Roger K. Leir, Ted Philips, Ray Stamford, Steve Colbern, Phyllis Budinger and others collected enough physical implants and traces to prove anything to anybody. Most of this evidence as well as witness testimonials will stand in a court of law.

Or just look at a physical evidence from Belgian UFO Flap: 3,000+ witnesses, 4 military radars, showing the same readings, interpreted by two top radar specialists in country who specifically claimed it was an extraterrestrial vehicle. Where is it now? Buried deep under a over-politicized mound of lazy and frequently ignorant debunker's malarkey.

Its just a cultural question, not a scientific one. You can bring to general public and academics as much evidence as you like, they'll still deny it. Except, of course, for live alien shaking hands with POTUS on the prime time TV.

Lets say that we can eliminate human element, in a form of a scientist scared for his carrier and reception of government grants, out of equation, and replace that scientist with unbiased cold minded Artificial Intelligence. AI would had long ago concluded that UFOs are here.

 

[marduk]

That's a standard problem. No highly technical or scientific situation can be resolved without technical or scientific knowledge. Common sense has its own huge limitations and at some point a specialist's common sense needs to take over. One wouldn't venture into a heart transplant, armed only with a common sense, neither one would get far creating artificial intelligence engine just based on non-specialist common sense notions.

For anybody with scientific background these two diagrams are all the scientific evidence that is needed to prove that UFOs are constantly visiting us.

The original project "Blue Book" concluded that 21.5% of cases can not be explained by ordinary means. If that value was bellow 5% any scientist would reject hypothesis. Any value above 5%, like 21.5%, would mean that hypothesis is valid. Practically on the day one "Blue Book" had proven that UFOs are here. This same method is used every day in medicine to test drugs that save lives.

This is another much less known proof, that would please any scientist, produced after an extensive study of 448 cases in MUFON's database, by Mark Rodeghier. Diagram shows number of stalled car engines as a function of distance from UFO. This diagram closely matches inverse square law, which is the mathematical law governing falling of the field's strength with distance.

In short, car engines near UFOs stalled at a same rate at which EM field strength changes. Since 448 cases came from 7 countries, and spanned over 70 years, it would be impossible to fake or simply be cultural influence.

But, there is plenty of physical evidence, coming from all kind of directions. Derrel Sims, Roger K. Leir, Ted Philips, Ray Stamford, Steve Colbern, Phyllis Budinger and others collected enough physical implants and traces to prove anything to anybody. Most of this evidence as well as witness testimonials will stand in a court of law.

Or just look at a physical evidence from Belgian UFO Flap: 3,000+ witnesses, 4 military radars, showing the same readings, interpreted by two top radar specialists in country who specifically claimed it was an extraterrestrial vehicle. Where is it now? Buried deep under a over-politicized mound of lazy and frequently ignorant debunker's malarkey.

Its just a cultural question, not a scientific one. You can bring to general public and academics as much evidence as you like, they'll still deny it. Except, of course, for live alien shaking hands with POTUS on the prime time TV.

Lets say that we can eliminate human element, in a form of a scientist scared for his carrier and reception of government grants, out of equation, and replace that scientist with unbiased cold minded Artificial Intelligence. AI would had long ago concluded that UFOs are here.

It's obvious that people are seeing something.

That is easy.

It's not proof of alien contact, a hidden terrestrial civilization, or anything else.

The null hypothesis, unfortunatly, still works. If you haven't experienced things yourself.

 

[DROBNJAK]

If 21.5% > 5% than UFOs are here, 4 times over.

"Blue book" never set out to prove hidden terrestrial civilizations. That's just pop-culture bolt-on.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

All the respect to Ted Philips and his painstaking research over the last 30-40 years and his library of 4,000 samples.

But Mark Rodeghier's graph, is scientifically speaking, much stronger evidence that UFOs are here. 440 independent witnesses, separated by space in 7 countries and and separated by time from 1908 to 1981 (before internet existed ;-). Even more so because none of the witnesses knew that Mark Rodeghier's will do a statistical study on their distance estimates.

Mark Rodeghier's statistical graph very well fits inverse square law, which is the way all the magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational fields decay with distance.

Mark Rodeghier's graph is impossible to fake, or for that matter to debunk, in any conceivable way. There was no way for 440 people from all over the globe, of which some died before others were born, to agree on car engine cut-off distances, and make distances to line up and produce inverse square law.

This is even more interesting than you may realize - monopole fields like an isolated electric or gravitational charge, diminish by the inverse square law, but dipole fields (like a magnet) diminish by an inverse cube law*. So that's telling us something about these effects. I've always assumed that these interactions with vehicles were the result of electromagnetic induction in the the electrical cables of a car, created by a powerful alternating magnetic dipole field. But that can't be true if we're seeing an inverse square law. An alternating magnetic monopole would induce inductive interference in automobile electrical cables with an inverse square law, but our science offers no method of producing a true magnetic monopole. If the hull of the craft were alternating between powerful negative and positive electrical charges, that could do the trick - but that wouldn't explain the trace cases involving magnetized materials: it takes a powerful steady magnetic field to do that (alternating magnetic fields actually degauss magnetic materials).

* Magnetic dipole - Wikipedia

 

[DROBNJAK]

This is even more interesting than you may realize - monopole fields like an isolated electric or gravitational charge, diminish by the inverse square law, but dipole fields (like a magnet) diminish by an inverse cube law*. So that's telling us something about these effects. I've always assumed that these interactions with vehicles were the result of electromagnetic induction in the the electrical cables of a car, created by a powerful alternating magnetic dipole field. But that can't be true if we're seeing an inverse square law. An alternating magnetic monopole would induce inductive interference in automobile electrical cables with an inverse square law, but our science offers no method of producing a true magnetic monopole. If the hull of the craft were alternating between powerful negative and positive electrical charges, that could do the trick - but that wouldn't explain the trace cases involving magnetized materials: it takes a powerful steady magnetic field to do that (alternating magnetic fields actually degauss magnetic materials).

Same here.

Because of my Tesla bias, I thought that this is a magnetic field effect. There is a particular feature of Tesla coil where guys use a permanent magnet across the spark gap to increase or dampen spark across the gap. So I thought, hey, the same thing is happening with spark from the alternator. Alan Haynek's team fell for it as well. As far as I can remember they used permanent magnets to make magnetic field of 2T and still failed to disrupt the engine.

I even went to calculate the strength of UFO magnetic field at a center, which went far above 100T.

But now, I am more inclined to go along with paper "UFO INTERFERENCE WITH VEHICLES AND SELF-STARTING ENGINES" by James M. McCampbell. What McCampbell is saying, there is lots of plasma around the craft. Plasma makes air conductive, so spark from alternator jumps through conductive air onto car's chassis. As soon as UFO departs, there is no more plasma and everything goes back to normal.

That explains both the inverse square law vs not inverse cube law dilema and plasma around the craft since plasma will spread with electric field, with inverse square law.

As well McCampbell's insight explains why nothing gets damaged and once UFO is gone, engine restarts normally. If there was a strong alternating magnetic field, it would cause uncontrollable eddie currents in the cables and ruin electrical equipment like radio, battery and floodlights.

Right now, I am not very up to date on EM effects, but as I remember from various studies, the UFO fields are offset. They alternate around, say, positive value. So you have a permanent field and than alternating field superimposed. Possibly amplitude never crosses zero. Bruce McCabee made an investigation in Florida, few days after UFO incident and I think that was what he concluded. McCabee used a differential magnetometer.

Magnetic fields are still enormous. There was a solid case where aluminum was magnetized from a distance of about 1m (3ft). Rodger Leir, who was a medical person, not an engineer found with gausmeter that a trunk of a tree was magnetized. In an Australian women by surname Kahill case, an ordinary patch of soil was magnetized in a crescent shape (similar to one side of Alcubierre drive, hmmm ;-)

There are tons of cases where UFOs "tried" to lift cars. Actually, they maybe didn't try to lift them at all. Maybe it was magnetic field around them that pulled the car up.

But one needs to spend some serious time going through elimination process. Big problem for me right now is EM vs GR ambiguity. From what you said, every EM effect has its corresponding GR effect. Although EM effects need much less power. But still.

 

[marduk]

If 21.5% > 5% than UFOs are here, 4 times over.

"Blue book" never set out to prove hidden terrestrial civilizations. That's just pop-culture bolt-on.

Hang on.

If you define UFOs as Unidentified Flying Objects, then sure. People see things flying that they can't identify.

This could be misidentified aircraft, atmospheric phenomenon, or a number of other things that are quite terrestrial and quite mundane.

If you define UFOs as non-terrestrial or exotic phenomena, the null hypothesis still works.

 

[DROBNJAK]

This could be misidentified aircraft, atmospheric phenomenon, or a number of other things that are quite terrestrial and quite mundane.

You think the team "Blue Book" didn' t know what you just said? They were all professional scientists, led by astronomer prof. Alan Hynek. The whole point of study was to eliminate "mundane" explanations and see what was left. You can check it out in this pie chart:

So misidentified aircraft, atmospheric stuff (?), astronomical stuff, balloons etc. took 78.5%. That's all included in the study. Practically scientists behind the study took care of everything that you said. And un-explainable took over with 21.5%. 21.5% doesn't include misidentified aircraft, they were taken care off and they take 20.1%.

What you are saying is that your opinion is better qualified than hands-on experience of the astronomer prof. Alan Hynek's and his team of scientists, who worked on government grant, on this issue, for several years. Prof. Alan Hynek, by using standard scientific method, concluded that ETH hypothesis is justified, and continued doing UFO research that he financed out of his own pocket. Hynek wrote books that promote ETH and he personally recruited a whole generation of UFO researchers, one of whom was Ted Phillips, a man with 4,000 soil samples from UFO landing sites.

 

[marduk]

You think the team "Blue Book" didn' t know what you just said? They were all professional scientists, led by astronomer prof. Alan Hynek. The whole point of study was to eliminate "mundane" explanations and see what was left. You can check it out in this pie chart:

So misidentified aircraft, atmospheric stuff (?), astronomical stuff, balloons etc. took 78.5%. That's all included in the study. Practically scientists behind the study took care of everything that you said. And un-explainable took over with 21.5%. 21.5% doesn't include misidentified aircraft, they were taken care off and they take 20.1%.

What you are saying is that your opinion is better qualified than hands-on experience of the astronomer prof. Alan Hynek's and his team of scientists, who worked on government grant, on this issue, for several years. Prof. Alan Hynek, by using standard scientific method, concluded that ETH hypothesis is justified, and continued doing UFO research that he financed out of his own pocket. Hynek wrote books that promote ETH and he personally recruited a whole generation of UFO researchers, one of whom was Ted Phillips, a man with 4,000 soil samples from UFO landing sites.

None of that means aliens are here. None of that means there's a breakaway civilization. And none of it means there are crypto terrestrials.

It means 'unknown.' Which could be anything, because it's unknown.

And unknowns can stay that way forever, or be chipped away at over time.

If you listen to Radio Mysterioso, there's a good recent story about Vallee presenting three very good 'unknown' cases. And he solved each one mundanely.

And remember, I say that as an experiencer. But being intellectually honest - that's only empirical evidence for me. It doesn't work for others.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Saying that is a generalization of generalization. "Unknown" would include UFOs, not just planes and stars.

I don't have time now to dig up few individual cases from "Blue Book", I'll do it later.

But for the sake of an example, how do you explain this "Unknown" as plane/ballon/Venus, the famous Coyne, Mansfield Ohio case where about 7-8 people, 4 of which were on duty military pilots, had seen cigar shaped UFO from distance of 100ft and were able to distinguish specific details on the hull? There were 3-5 independent witnesses on the ground who described exactly the same sequence of events. How do you fit that cigar shaped UFO into a plane/balloon/Venus categories?

The debunker who can explain that cigar shaped UFO as a "swamp gas" is yet to be born.

Or another "Unknown" case full of material evidence, when during Belgian UFO flap 4 military radars and 2 pilots and 3,500 witnesses had seen floating black triangles. Or the best recent case MUFON #74282. Or the UFO that you had seen. And list goes on and on.

 

[marduk]

Saying that is a generalization of generalization. "Unknown" would include UFOs, not just planes and stars.

I don't have time now to dig up few individual cases from "Blue Book", I'll do it later.

But for the sake of an example, how do you explain this "Unknown" as plane/ballon/Venus, the famous Coyne, Mansfield Ohio case where about 7-8 people, 4 of which were on duty military pilots, had seen cigar shaped UFO from distance of 100ft and were able to distinguish specific details on the hull? There were 3-5 independent witnesses on the ground who described exactly the same sequence of events. How do you fit that cigar shaped UFO into a plane/balloon/Venus categories?

The debunker who can explain that cigar shaped UFO as a "swamp gas" is yet to be born.

Or another "Unknown" case full of material evidence, when during Belgian UFO flap 4 military radars and 2 pilots and 3,500 witnesses had seen floating black triangles. Or the best recent case MUFON #74282. Or the UFO that you had seen. And list goes on and on.

Again. I've seen these things, so I know (for me) that they are there.

However a skeptic does not need to explain an unknown. That is a logical fallacy. Just because I cannot explain something doesn't mean that the something is actually something that you want it to be.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

An even better description:

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

And a good example:

Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y, which requires justification.
Person 1 demands that person 2 justify the opposite of Y.
Person 2 refuses or is unable to comply.
Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:
Jack: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.
Nick: How do you figure?
Jack: Can you prove that I don't?
Nick: No.
Jack: Then I do.

Explanation: Jack made a claim that requires justification. Nick asked for the evidence, but Jack shifted the burden of proof to Nick. When Nick was unable to refute Jack's (unfalsifiable) claim, Jack claimed victory.
Shifting of the Burden of Proof

The null hypothesis would say that there was nothing there. Explanations for nothing being there would be easy to come by:
- they all were lying. (Which we know happens)
- they all hallucinated. (Which we also know happens)
Etc.

An extension of the null hypothesis might say that something was there, but it was something mundane that was misidentified. For example, we have:
- an aircraft
- a dirigible
Etc.

The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. If you're asserting that something that challenges the status quo (ET visited these folks) then it's your burden to prove it. Not the skeptics to answer what it was if it wasn't ET.

Again, I say that as a person who has himself seen a giant cigar shaped craft as a child from under 100 feet away.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Yeah, but philosophy is irrelevant. At the best philosophy is just a form of entertainment by deliberately confusing oneself, at a worst its PR service for crooked politicians. How many jobs had philosophy created vs how many jobs science has created?

I thought you are looking from more serious angle.

By the same rationale, we can conclude that sex doesn't exist, or that atom doesn't exist.

If aliens are not cooperating, how are we going to prove that they exist? Whole point is of having a reasonable proof. Thomas had recently written that according General Relativity it is possible to cross void to the nearest star Alpha Centori in a less than a day, on a reasonable power levels. That's pretty much game changer.

You've seen cigar shaped UFO, Coyne case 6 adults and 2-3 children had seen the cigar UFO, other member of this forum had seen cigar UFO in Afghanistan, hunter in Cisco, California case had seen cigar UFO, during Mussolini there was an official investigation into cigar shaped UFO. Probably there were more.

 

[marduk]

Yeah, but philosophy is irrelevant. At the best philosophy is just a form of entertainment by deliberately confusing oneself, at a worst its PR service for crooked politicians. How many jobs had philosophy created vs how many jobs science has created?

I thought you are looking from more serious angle.

By the same rationale, we can conclude that sex doesn't exist, or that atom doesn't exist.

If aliens are not cooperating, how are we going to prove that they exist? Whole point is of having a reasonable proof. Thomas had recently written that according General Relativity it is possible to cross void to the nearest star Alpha Centori in a less than a day, on a reasonable power levels. That's pretty much game changer.

You've seen cigar shaped UFO, Coyne case 6 adults and 2-3 children had seen the cigar UFO, other member of this forum had seen cigar UFO in Afghanistan, hunter in Cisco, California case had seen cigar UFO, during Mussolini there was an official investigation into cigar shaped UFO. Probably there were more.

Logic and reason is logic and reason.

If you're going to throw that out of the window, you're not going to convince anybody.

Because that's just being delusional.

This is not a philosophical or academic debate.

Simply because you're just arguing from belief or emotion.

If you want to be listened by the scientific or academic community, then you have to not trigger their immune response.

One of the ways you don't trigger their immune response is by not shifting the burden of proof away from yourself.

If your assertion is that aliens are here, then prove it. You can't.

All you can prove is that unknown things are witnessed in the sky.

 

[William Strathmann]

Prof. Alan Hynek, by using standard scientific method, concluded that ETH hypothesis is justified, and continued doing UFO research that he financed out of his own pocket. Hynek wrote books that promote ETH and he personally recruited a whole generation of UFO researchers, one of whom was Ted Phillips, a man with 4,000 soil samples from UFO landing sites.

In the name of fairness:

Jerome "Jerry" Clark, an associate of J. Allen Hynek, had this to say about Hynek's views
(retrieved by Jerry Cohen, from 1998, Errol Bruce-Knapp's UFO Updates mailing list):

[Hynek's] longtime closet occultism explains why at the end he had moved into extremely speculative approaches. He once confided to me his belief that "elementals" (nature spirits, for the occult-unread out there) are behind the UFO phenomenon.​

Obviously, this is not a vote for the ETH. Moreover, Clark's comment about Hynek's acceptance of the occult aligns with Hynek's 1978 appearance on a Canadian CBC TV program Beyond Reason, where an astrologer, a psychic and a clairvoyant tried to guess Hynek's identity, in a kind of paranormal "What's My Line?" The clairvoyant did identify Hynek, as seen here. So Hynek did not shun the paranormal.

Also around that time Hynek made a TV appearance on "The Amazing Kreskin" show, another Canadian production. Hynek said that he'd like to start a Kreskin-Hynek foundation to investigate the parapsychological, i.e. poltergeist phenomena that accompanies some UFO events.

On Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show, Hynek specifically stated that assuming that UFOs are visitors from outer space is "putting the cart before the horse." In other words, Hynek and his investigative associates did not assume the ETH. They investigated evidence that could be interpreted in various ways.

This, by the way, agrees with Hynek's comment in one of his earliest books, The UFO Experience, A Scientific Inquiry (1972, reprint 1974), pg 20:

Clearly, flying saucers, whether defined as extraterrestrial craft, misperceptions, or highly mission-oriented carriers of cosmic knowledge to "contactees", obviously do not satisfy the definition of UFOs since all of these definitions presuppose, a priori, the origin and nature of flying saucers.​

Beyond all the above, I happened to hear a live radio interview of Hynek on the Ed Busch Show, somewhere between 1979-1981. When the phone lines were opened, one of the callers asked Hynek where he thought UFOs come from. Hynek said he thought UFOs come from a realm akin to that of God and the angels. That is what he said on live radio. One of the next callers simply launched into a solid minute barrage of caustic ad hominem against Hynek for delegitimizing the "scientific" study of UFOs by his suggestion of their association with God and angels. Hynek politely put up with the attack, but didn't back down. After the show, I decided to write a letter to Hynek (back when you actually had to use a piece of paper and a pen) and I thanked him, someone with great expertise in the matter, that he was willing to call it as he sees it, despite the emotional responses of many people who are highly invested in the subject. I was surprised when a few weeks later I received a courteous response from Hynek. (Sorry, I lost that letter a long time ago.)

As far as Ted Phillips goes, he certainly has a large collection of physical trace evidence, but he also not long ago was investigating a place he called "Marley Woods" and it was not a landing terminal for ETH visitors, but from what he said, it was a kind of Missouri version of the paranormal Skinwalker Ranch.

It won't serve anyone's best interest to promote faulty views, especially on the subject of UFOs, which is so desperately in need of a nuanced approach.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

All of this is in line with what Hynek told me when I interviewed him in the mid-1970s.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

 

[DROBNJAK]

In the name of fairness:

Jerome "Jerry" Clark, an associate of J. Allen Hynek, had this to say about Hynek's views
(retrieved by Jerry Cohen, from 1998, Errol Bruce-Knapp's UFO Updates mailing list):

[Hynek's] longtime closet occultism explains why at the end he had moved into extremely speculative approaches. He once confided to me his belief that "elementals" (nature spirits, for the occult-unread out there) are behind the UFO phenomenon.​

Obviously, this is not a vote for the ETH. Moreover, Clark's comment about Hynek's acceptance of the occult aligns with Hynek's 1978 appearance on a Canadian CBC TV program Beyond Reason, where an astrologer, a psychic and a clairvoyant tried to guess Hynek's identity, in a kind of paranormal "What's My Line?" The clairvoyant did identify Hynek, as seen here. So Hynek did not shun the paranormal.

Also around that time Hynek made a TV appearance on "The Amazing Kreskin" show, another Canadian production. Hynek said that he'd like to start a Kreskin-Hynek foundation to investigate the parapsychological, i.e. poltergeist phenomena that accompanies some UFO events.

On Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show, Hynek specifically stated that assuming that UFOs are visitors from outer space is "putting the cart before the horse." In other words, Hynek and his investigative associates, did not assume the ETH. They investigated evidence that could be interpreted in various ways.

This, by the way, agrees with Hynek's comment in one of his earliest books, The UFO Experience, A Scientific Inquiry (1972, reprint 1974), pg 20:

Clearly, flying saucers, whether defined as extraterrestrial craft, misperceptions, or highly mission-oriented carriers of cosmic knowledge to "contactees", obviously do not satisfy the definition of UFOs since all of these definitions presuppose, a priori, the origin and nature of flying saucers.​

Beyond all the above, I happened to hear a live radio interview of Hynek on the Ed Busch Show, somewhere between 1979-1981. When the phone lines were opened, one of the callers asked Hynek where he thought UFOs come from. Hynek said he thought UFOs come from a realm akin to that of God and the angels. That is what he said on live radio. One of the next callers simply launched into a solid minute barrage of caustic ad hominem against Hynek for delegitimizing the "scientific" study of UFOs by his suggestion of their association with God and angels. Hynek politely put up with the attack, but didn't back down. After the show, I decided to write a letter to Hynek (back when you actually had to use a piece of paper and a pen) and I thanked him, someone with great expertise in the matter, that he was willing to call it as he sees it, despite the emotional responses of many people who are highly invested in the subject. I was surprised when a few weeks later I received a courteous response from Hynek. (Sorry, I lost that letter a long time ago.)

As far as Ted Phillips goes, he certainly has a large collection of physical trace evidence, but he also not long ago was investigating a place he called "Marley Woods" and it was not a landing terminal for ETH visitors, but from what he said, it was a kind of Missouri version of the paranormal Skinwalker Ranch.

It won't serve anyone's best interest to promote faulty views, especially on the subject of UFOs, which is so desperately in need of a nuanced approach.

Absolutely crazy. Would never thought that about Hynek.