It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by booNyzarC
Hola Boonster, how the Dickens are you mate - good to see you on ATS.
Don't know if you've seen this cheeky clip but thought Dr Hynek did a good job of summing up the Condon report.
Video
Cheers.
Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
I think you are attempting to play down Hyneks beliefs towards the existence and origins of the UFO phenomenon.
...
Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."
Hardly the views of someone who had written off the possibility of ET involvement in the UFO phenomenon.
Originally posted by WeRpeons
The reason most scientists and physicists stay away from UFO research is because they fear of being ostracized by the scientific community.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You cite these quotes making a point that the subject needs to be taken seriously and studied,
THE SCIENCE OF UFOs: FACTS VS. STEREOTYPES
Stereotypes die hard. The myth among scientists that UFOs are a "nonsense problem" without any substance was firmly established more than 50 years ago and persists until this day.
Among the deeply embedded misconceptions of scientists are:
*UFOs are nothing but vague fleeting lights seen at night,
*No trained or experienced observers have reported truly puzzling UFOs,
*UFOs are prosaic objects or phenomena that are converted into spaceships by "believers,"
*A religious-like "will to believe" in salvation from the outside drives the entire UFO phenomenon, and
*Nothing of substance has been reported that science could investigate even if it wanted to.
These notions all are demonstrably false. They are "psychological road-blocks" that need to be cleared away so that discovery of UFOs can proceed. The cases used as illustrations in this report are chosen partly to refute the stereotypes and partly to show the recurring patterns and observational details, with special emphasis on the numerous areas of potential scientific research that would be possible if UFOs were accepted as a real phenomenon and funding were available.
Link
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
yet at the same time showing the phenomena has in fact has been studied. Studied by qualified scientists in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, physics, etc.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
To what conclusion though?
"..there are now sufficient material evidences that some ufos are flying machines driven by an intelligence and having flight characteristics that today's human technology is far from reaching".
link
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
there is no conclusion because a lack of physical evidence that can be studied. You can pull every scientists off their job to study UFOs and you will get the same conclusion. Assumptions and hypothesis. Until that one piece of physical evidence shows up, it will always be an assumption.
Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
I think you are attempting to play down Hyneks beliefs towards the existence and origins of the UFO phenomenon.
In the linked video, he completely slates the Condon report, calling it a 'travesty on science', and pointing out that not only did Condon not personally investigate 1 case, but wrote the summary ignoring the 1/4 of the studied cases coming back as unexplained.
Yes, he did indeed say the quotes you highlight, but he also said "There is sufficient evidence to defend both the ETI and the EDI hypothesis." and, as evidence for the ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) he mentioned, as examples, the radar cases as good evidence of something solid, and the physical-trace cases. Then he turned to defending the EDI (extradimensional intelligence) hypothesis.
Besides the aspect of materialization and dematerialization he cited the "poltergeist" phenomenon experienced by some people after a close encounter; the photographs of UFOs, some times on only one frame, not seen by the witnesses; the changing form right before the witnesses' eyes; the puzzling question of telepathic communication; or that in close encounters of the third kind the creatures seem to be at home in earth's gravity and atmosphere; the sudden stillness in the presence of the craft; levitation of cars or persons; the development by some of psychic abilities after an encounter. "Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?" Hynek asked
Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."
Hardly the views of someone who had written off the possibility of ET involvement in the UFO phenomenon.
Originally posted by mbkennel
Research, in its normal form, isn't really possible.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You make the mistake that many here do in reference to Hynek. They selectively quote what fits into their way of thinking, from years before, without taking in account the totality of his views after 60+ years of study. Like I mentioned, in 1983 at a MUFON symposium a few years before his death, he expressed his renewed views of the UFO phenomenon related to alien involvement. He however kept the view that the phenomenon of UFOs themselves should be seriously studied.
In a TV interview with Tom Synder in the early 80's, he states:
"In the public eye, UFOs are synonymous with little green men from outer space. That's putting the cart before the horse. What we are studying at the Center for UFOs Studies in Evanston are the properties of a phenomenon."
Clearly, his focus was on the unidentified objects and not if they were alien.
In the same interview, Synder goes on to say: "Part of the problem with the whole perception business with UFOs is... Number one, you said we're putting the cart before the horse..rather than indentify what the objects are, we're trying to guess what's inside the objects." To which Hynek agrees.
Video
If people are going to use Hynek quotes as part of their support system as far as alien involvement, they need to understand the entirety of his belief and not just pull selected quotes from 30+ years ago. My main point is that I find it silly using someone like Hynek, as validity to a belief that UFOs are intelligently controlled by aliens. All you're quoting are assumptions by someone that has studied the phenomenon through videos/photos/interviews to his best ability still without a conclusive result. Posting quotes doesn't make the point anymore valid in lieu of the proof that's needed. So, I don't understand the continuous need to do so.
Originally posted by Brighter
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You make the mistake that many here do in reference to Hynek. They selectively quote what fits into their way of thinking, from years before, without taking in account the totality of his views after 60+ years of study. Like I mentioned, in 1983 at a MUFON symposium a few years before his death, he expressed his renewed views of the UFO phenomenon related to alien involvement. He however kept the view that the phenomenon of UFOs themselves should be seriously studied.
In a TV interview with Tom Synder in the early 80's, he states:
"In the public eye, UFOs are synonymous with little green men from outer space. That's putting the cart before the horse. What we are studying at the Center for UFOs Studies in Evanston are the properties of a phenomenon."
Clearly, his focus was on the unidentified objects and not if they were alien.
In the same interview, Synder goes on to say: "Part of the problem with the whole perception business with UFOs is... Number one, you said we're putting the cart before the horse..rather than indentify what the objects are, we're trying to guess what's inside the objects." To which Hynek agrees.
Video
If people are going to use Hynek quotes as part of their support system as far as alien involvement, they need to understand the entirety of his belief and not just pull selected quotes from 30+ years ago. My main point is that I find it silly using someone like Hynek, as validity to a belief that UFOs are intelligently controlled by aliens. All you're quoting are assumptions by someone that has studied the phenomenon through videos/photos/interviews to his best ability still without a conclusive result. Posting quotes doesn't make the point anymore valid in lieu of the proof that's needed. So, I don't understand the continuous need to do so.
You appear to have missed the point of Hynek's comment in the Tom Synder interview. It should be clear that what Hynek was trying to achieve in that interview was to preempt the deeply embedded psychosocial prejudice that automatically links UFOs with aliens. You see this same psychological pattern / compulsion with many "skeptics" on this board. Whenever the topic of UFOs comes up, they immediately disregard it by sneaking in this idea of aliens. Hynek was acutely aware of this type of thinking, especially in regard to the negative impact it has on the social perception of the study of UFOs.
Listen to Hynek's quote again and take note that he never said that aliens were not linked to UFOs (nor did he say that they were linked to UFOs). He did, however, advise against putting "the cart before the horse". In other words, he's expressing his views on the meta-thinking that takes place regarding the subject, and certainly not making a comment about his final views as to whether or not UFOs and aliens are linked. And there is certainly no proof in this interview that he had suddenly changed his fundamental views on that subject. If that's your understanding, then I would suggest that you're projecting your own desired views onto what he is saying. Again, notice that he's not saying that UFOs and aliens are not linked, just that in order to study UFOs, one need not at this point talk about aliens.
On the other hand, Hynek's "The Case Against E.T." talk does make clear his strongest counter-arguments to the ETH, which is what you'd simply expect from a careful thinker and a true skeptic - always carefully weighing both sides of the argument, and attempting to create the strongest possible argument from either side prior to weighing them against one another.
So in "The Case Against E.T.," Hynek is providing a series of concerns that the ETH will have to deal with (and note that he's not even addressing the EDH) - things like the astronomical distances traversed to and from the closest neighboring star system, their apparent ability to instantaneously cloak themselves and the bizarre behavior of the alleged occupants. I hope you can see that these are hardly intractable problems for the ETH, and one would be very surprised if he would have viewed them as such. What he is doing is cataloging the counterarguments to the ETH. He is not stating that he does not believe the ETH.
In short, be careful not to interpret Hynek's quotes as indicating that he didn't believe in the ETH or EDH. He was simply raising the standard issues that the ETH would have to deal with. There is no reason to believe that he thought either the ETH or the EDH were totally implausible. These comments that you are pointing out were not the comments of a man who had given up on the ETH. They were the comments of a man who wanted people to think clearly about the UFO phenomenon.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Hynek didn't give an ambivalent speech where you could misinterpret what he said. He retracted his earlier statements by not only stating so, but giving actual point by point reasons. Completely different than his initial views that he had years ago. He did this in front of what more than likely were a group of people that believe in alien involvement. So, he obviously was making a point with his statement. The Tom Synder interview just verbally confirms that he no longer considered what was inside, but what the phenomenon actually is. Combining the two, you can see his belief had changed. You're choosing to interpet what he said into what fits into most members view of ET/UFOs by trying to combine his past quotes with his most recent and assuming what he meant. I'm going purely off what he said before he died.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The bottom line is, that it doesn't matter if Hynek, or any scientist, gives their opinion on what is piloting "UFOs". They could study every single case that has been reported and come up with a hypothesis. It doesn't make that hypothesis any more of a realistic answer than if you or I gave our opinion. It doesn't because of the fact in the decades of reports, not a single piece of evidence has surfaced and confirmed to be from an alien source. So all of these "professional" or "scientific" quotes that people repeatedly post here show nothing more than another persons opinion. It's silly to think it gives more validity to the case of alien involvement with UFOs.
Originally posted by Brighter
I actually ran out of time this morning and couldn't finish my thought.
What I wanted to point out was that this skepticism of Hynek's regarding the ETH was actually part of his more general turn towards the IDH/EDH, as Thunda suggested. As you know, Hynek in his later years co-authored, along with Vallee, "The Edge of Reality," in which they espouse the IDH/EDH. So although you seem to want to believe that Hynek had somehow thrown out the idea of these craft being controlled by non-human intelligences (by focusing solely on his later skepticism of the ETH), one can see how his skepticism of the ETH is what leads him to the IDH/EDH.
And to reiterate, I don't think that Hynek's skepticism of the ETH suggests that he had completely disregarded the idea (as you seem to think). In fact, if he were alive today and endowed with our current perspective, there is reason to believe that he would have responded to his own objections to the ETH along the same lines as Michael Swords does on pp. 575-582 of his "Ufology: What Have We Learned?".
Looking back at your reply to Thunda, it appears as though you're completely ignoring Hynek's investment in the IDH/EDH. You're accusing Thunda of selectively quoting Hynek in order to fit a belief. But by all accounts, and anyone can see this, you continually ignore the fact that Hynek was a proponent of the IDH/EDH. One could easily argue that this is because you're trying to ignore one of Hynek's core beliefs in order to fit your own.
Actually, it does matter. There seems to be this feel-good belief nowadays that everyone's opinion is just as good as the other. Unfortunately, it's not true. Some people are born with greater abilities than others, have had a better education, better training, exposure, etc. And if anyone on earth at the time was in a position to expound on the possible origins of UFOs, then Hynek would be at the top of the list.
You point out that "not a single piece of evidence has surfaced and confirmed to be from an alien source". This is of course true, but you seem to want to imply that this means that the entire line of inquiry is pointless. But this is precisely the kind of black and white thinking that I've mentioned elsewhere that seems to be a staple of "popular skepticism". But a true skeptic wouldn't give up so easily. Given the reality of UFOs, and given the lack of absolute, confirmed evidence regarding their origin, instead of stopping the inquiry there (which would strongly imply a prejudice towards either an alien or mundane origin), it is necessary to seriously consider possible explanations that are compatible with our knowledge of UFOs, but that doesn't stop us from making conscious and careful initial assumptions that slowly whittle down that initially large set. This is a realm of plausibilities, not confirmed realities, yet this is all we have recourse to, as rational people unfettered by cultural or intellectual biases, at this point in time.
Originally posted by booNyzarC
I hadn't seen that particular interview before, though I'm familiar with Hynek's opinions about the Condon report.
Originally posted by booNyzarC
Hykek did go through different 'phases' throughout his career, and seemed to take an honest and dedicated approach to the subject. Ultimately though, I think he reached the conclusion the phenomenon was unlikely to consist in nuts and bolts craft, and that we should start looking closer to home for answers instead of trying to shoehorn the ETH as an answer.
I refer, of course, to the phenomenon of UFOs... Unidentified Flying Objects... which I should like to define here simply as "any aerial or surface sighting, or instrumental recording (e.g., radar, photography, etc.) which remains unexplained by conventional methods even after competent examination by qualified persons."
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that this definition says nothing about little green men from outer space, or manifestations from spiritual realms, or various psychic manifestations. It simply states an operational definition. A cardinal mistake, and a source of great confusion, has been the almost universal substitution of an interpretation of the UFO phenomenon for the phenomenon itself.
This is akin to having ascribed the Aurora Borealis to angelic communication before we understood the physics of the solar wind.
Nonetheless, in the popular mind the UFO phenomenon is associated with the concept of extra-terrestrial intelligence and this might yet prove to be correct in some context.
link
Originally posted by booNyzarC
It is notable that he ended up visiting Hessdalen near the end of his life, where scientific research into atmospheric plasmas which exhibit many of the same characteristics reported by UFO witnesses was taking place. I think he may have been on the verge of discovering and understanding one of the more likely 'closer to home' answers for the UFO enigma in general.
In considering extra-terrestrial intelligence, said Dr. Hynek, we may be putting the cart before the horse. As a humorous example, he added:
"'Speaking of horses, suppose someone comes here and tells us... there is a report of a horse in the bath tub. I think it would be rather pointless to then ask, what is the color of the horse, what does he eat, how could he have gotten there, who who installed the bath tub? The question is, IS there a horse in the bath tub?
HYNEK HITS UFO INVESTIGATION, CONFIRMS EVIDENCE
Pressure Mounting To End Debunking
PDF File
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
As far as Hyneks IDH or EDH, I'm not ignoring it, just responding to his latest comments from the 1983 article I posted. What "Thunda" quotes is from a speech he gave in 1977 at the International UFO Congress, not from his "The Case Agains E.T" speech. The book you mentioned, "The Edge of Reality" was published in 1976. Neither of those are relevant to what I'm speaking of. As I said, later in his life, in the early to mid 80s, he had clearly moved on from assuming what was "piloting them" into what "they" actually were. His "Putting the cart before the horse" comment from Synder's show not only applies to his ETH, but to IDH and EDH as well. In fact, if assuming is a form of deduction for believers, look at his point 5 in the MUFON JOURNAL comment, he states that:
"The apparent isolation of the UFO phenomenon in space and time, what Hynek calls 'Cheshire Cat Effect', after the character in 'Alice in Wonderland' who appeared sometimes as only a smile or a tail, and sometimes not at all 'The UFO appears spontaneously" said Hynek,'remains visible for a short while, and then like that remarkable cat, is gone... but where to? The UFO seems to have dual existence: physical at one moment, non-physical at the next."
These points are against a hypothesis and one could "assume" he was commenting directly to this IDH or EDH.
You make the mistake that many here do in reference to Hynek. They selectively quote what fits into their way of thinking, from years before, without taking in account the totality of his views after 60+ years of study. Like I mentioned, in 1983 at a MUFON symposium a few years before his death, he expressed his renewed views of the UFO phenomenon related to alien involvement. He however kept the view that the phenomenon of UFOs themselves should be seriously studied.
Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by karl 12
there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO subject.
To me, ^ this is why we can expect no help from the scientific community.
Most scientific endeavors are funded and controlled by the government, which means the science community is at the mercy of a bureaucracy that has already been paid off or silenced because of "national security."
Plus, the government will try and pass of Project Blue Book as their scientific study into UFOs ...... and it all turned out exactly how we knew it would.... a big lie.edit on 29-11-2012 by dplum517 because: typo