In later literature, two additional observational classes were instituted after Hynek’s passing; these include cases that involve some apparent mental or physical transport of an individual between locations in conjunction with a UFO observation (CE IV), and a disputed fifth category (CE V) that may involve UFO physical injury cases (as proposed by Jacques Vallée), or human-initiated interactive encounters with UFOs (as proposed by Steven Greer).8
As we already see with the differing opinions about what constitutes the “CE V” cases, a number of other issues arise from these early classifications. Namely, the fact that Hynek’s term for “Daylight Discs” borrowed from the heavily inferred “flying saucer” meme that became popular after the famous Kenneth Arnold sighting of 1947. Even Hynek, as did Hendry after him, noted that the term “Daylight Discs” actually referred to any number of different types of objects—not just “discs”—as they appeared when observed in the daylight. These ranged from actual discs, to egg-shaped objects, cylindrical craft, and a host of other shapes.9
There are many UFO reports that have described little more than amorphous illuminations, whether seen by day or by night; the primary difference here being that a nighttime observation would presumably leave far more to the imagination than a daylight observation. Imagine some vague, luminous form observed in the night sky; it is easy to see that this may in fact represent any number of things, perceived only by the apparent presence of lights. Do these lights envelope the object, or merely represent fixed points on a much larger craft? If two parties were to see the exact same amorphous, luminous object, with one group observing at night, while the other observed it during partly overcast conditions in afternoon daylight, one could easily guess that the interpretations of this hypothetical object might vary greatly. Introduce a small group of these lights, rather than a single luminous orb, and the nighttime watchers might consider them lights along the perimeter of a larger craft, while our afternoon observers would liken it instead to a small “fleet” of orbs flying in formation.
Right off the bat, it begins to make logical sense to do away with the entire concept of “Daylight Discs.” We also see that it may be important to draw distinctions between objects seen in daylight hours that are structured-looking “craft,” versus those which are merely luminous phenomena that may otherwise resemble the “Nocturnal Lights” Hynek originally designated. Based on our earlier examples, we might do well to introduce separate designations for the nocturnal and daylight luminous phenomena as well, based on the likely differences in the ways each may be interpreted dependent on on visible conditions.
At the time Hynek began to devise his initial classification system, military bodies in the U.S. government and those elsewhere around the world, gave far more credence to the UFO situation (as made obvious by Hynek’s work as a scientific advisor to the USAF’s UFO study program, Project Blue Book). Hence, UFO incidents that occurred in close enough proximity to military installations, airports, or aircraft in flight might be able to produce radar information to corroborate visual sightings. While still relevant today, the lessened interest by military bodies in the UFO subject, paired with a range of new technologies that may serve as useful ways to corroborate visual sightings, presents a case for modifying and expanding Hynek’s “Radar Visual” category as well.
While a close-hand UFO observation (CE I cases, generally recognized as being within 500 feet) may provide useful data, such observations in the past have failed to provide significantly useful new data about UFOs in the broader sense. Additionally, the Vallée definition for a CE V case would appear to be very similar to Hynek’s CE II classification, in that each presents evidence of physical interactions between the UFO and its surrounding area (by area, here I also mean any individuals operating in that space). Given these criteria, CE IV may also qualify, in that a person being transported between locations also infers that the UFO has interacted with its physical environment and those within it.
Lastly, while UFO literature from the last several decades reveals a plethora of case studies that purport to involve interactions with UFO occupants, many researchers today will recognize that such claims have seen a sharp decline since the 1990s. Whether this is due to cultural factors, changes in belief systems, or some other stimuli (or the lack thereof) remains undetermined. Regardless, the marked decline in exotic UFO craft and occupant cases that once littered the UFO journals and publications is a noteworthy observation.
Now that we have observed the problems with the older classification systems, in addition to having noted certain changes in the way the UFO subject is being studied in the present day, I have assembled a new classification system, which I feel is more efficient, in addition to being less reliant on the prevalent memes and staples from the ufology of yesteryear (things like “flying discs” and “abductions”).
This new proposed classification system is as follows:
Nocturnal Luminous Phenomena
Daylight Luminous Phenomena
Aerial Craft or Structured Objects
Objects Corroborated with Radar, Satellites, Photos, Video or Smartphone Apps
Objects that Interact Physically with Individuals or the Environment
Objects Accompanied by Beings or Apparent Operators
I expect, with time, that many of these designations and guidelines may change, or will otherwise be met with challenges, such is always the case, as we have seen, when new data forthcoming presents a case for re-thinking old ideas.
In order for the proposed classification system to be effective, I feel it is also pertinent to have a filtering system through which possible IFOs (Identified Flying Objects) may be easily grouped and discerned, at least in the majority of cases. Using a filtering system in this way will help prevent the absent-minded collection of endless reports of lights seen at night, or of vague descriptions of structured objects seen by day. As Hendry and the CUFOS had done in the late 1970s, proactive research that involved phone calls to local airports, Air Force Bases, National Weather Service centers, advertising plane companies, and other sources of useful information will nearly always reveal a common source behind some otherwise strange-sounding UFO reports.
Bearing this in mind, the following designations of UAP constitute circumstances that range from little-understood natural phenomena, to manmade aircraft, and even some speculative technologies for which a good amount of data exists to support a basis for their existence. Psychological interpretations of possible UAP are also considered. These are all areas where science, if applied in a proper, discerning manner, may yield new results or confirmations, in addition to helping understand their relationship to the study of unexplained aerial phenomena:
Natural Phenomena
Celestial
Atmospheric / Meteorological
Geological
Refractions / Mirages / Illusions
Biological (birds, insects, etc)
Psychological Phenomena
Misinterpretation of prosaic occurrences
Delusions / Fantasies
Mental Disorders
Manmade Non-Vehicular Aerial Objects
Balloons
Kites
Satellites / International Space Station
Spotlights
Rockets / Fireworks
Drones / Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
Civilian UAVs
Military UAVs
Conventional Manmade Piloted Aircraft
Hobbyists / Inventors
Misidentification of Known Commercial or Military Aircraft
Experimental / Secret Government Aircraft or Technologies
Secret / Undisclosed Military Aircraft
Privately Funded Research & Development Operations
Note the inclusion of a “biological” subcategory within the designations for “Natural Phenomena” listed above. Implausible though it may seem that a bird or an insect might be mistaken for being a UFO, this often does occur in photos and video. It happens
when a much smaller creature in flight passes near the camera lens, giving the appearance of a larger, faster-moving object further off in the distance. Adding further confusion is the fact that, under some circumstances, physical characteristics of a fast-moving object or animal may be distorted in photos and videos, as with the so-called “rods” that result from traces of the wingbeats of insects as recorded by interlaced video systems.
Also note that the designations presented in the category system above do not include such things as “alien craft,” “strange humanoids,” “inter-dimensional phenomena,” or other presently unproven or speculative sources for UAP reports. The reason for this, rather than to eliminate any possibility of the existence of such things, is because in the event that all of the above can be ruled out, then all we are left to consider, with any certainty, is the presence of some “unknown.” In order to extrapolate further upon the possible source of the resulting “unknown,” we would require more data… but we must reach that point first.
At the present time, despite the kinds of “evidence” the UFO community has offered over the last several decades, little has been forthcoming that would satisfy the biologist, chemist, or physicist. Granted, this is not to say that some evidence does not warrant further review; merely that no such evidence appears to offer irrefutable “proof” of an anomalous source behind UAP reports, at least at present. Perhaps this will change in the future, either with the acquisition of new data, or with the utilization of new technologies that may help us learn new things about existing evidence on hand.
The Merits, and Problems, With “Modern Skepticism”
My views presented here are, I feel, necessarily skeptical, and hence it may seem questionable why one of such disposition would seek further to commune with the broader “UFO Community” today—a community whose greatest names and personalities largely still champion the extraterrestrial hypothesis, or at least some variation of it.
The reason, to me, is very simple: I can respect, communicate, and interact with people who do not share my own ideas. Despite my skepticism, I have been shown great respect by many within the UFO community, and have made lasting friendships with many people whose own ideas about the phenomenon differ greatly from my own.
Conversely, in my personal experiences, I have found that my interactions with those who identify with the ideology of modern skepticism are not as warm or friendly; while this is not always the case, often, the modern skeptic will shun anyone who is willing to give consideration to the notion that there may be more to the world than any of us are presently aware (Hendry might have identified these individuals as the “why can’t we just debunk 100% of all UFOs?” crowd).
Modern skepticism can, I think, be summarized in many instances as an ideology, around which a social movement has been built—one that, today, also runs tangent with atheism—and as a paradoxically evangelical attitude about the supremacy of science above all other forms of knowledge.
Obviously, science and, more importantly, the scientific method, rest at the cusp of what I seek to address in the present missive. Hence, in pointing out the adoption of a dogmatic “scientism” amidst the modern skeptic movement is not to detract from the proper applications of science by any means. Neither is it meant to disregard skepticism, when applied scientifically, rather than as part of an ideology one adopts, or in order to garner favor from others within any proposed social movement, which modern skeptics might seek to join. These are elements that I feel, unfortunately, do inform the minds of many modern “skeptics,” which has led them to the dismissal of a wide range of beliefs and disciplines; no less unfortunate among these than the current conflict surrounding physicists and their disregard for philosophy.
To the contrary, I hope to instill in the mind of the reader that proper adherence to scientific methodology, and a reasonable, open-minded skepticism, will be of great benefit to the study of UFOs. To quote the notable skeptic Gary P. Posner, M.D. (someone whose views toward the UFO subject, though often different from my own, I certainly do appreciate), “The great irony is that we “skeptics” are the open-minded ones. As certain as we may be that UFOs are not ET… we are capable of—indeed committed to—changing our minds, should compelling evidence be brought to the fore.”
Perhaps, with careful thought, analysis, and an equal willingness to be open-minded in our skepticism, science can help us move toward a better ufology than we have seen in years past… and with it, perhaps, more answers than we have managed to attain previously.
ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT FLYING SAUCERS IS WRONG
Lorin Cutts
The modern UFO era has presented us with a set of problems that we have been unable to deal with in any rational or responsible way for over seventy years. Popular UFO mythology would have us believe that it all started when businessman and pilot, Kenneth Arnold, set off in his small plane from Chehalis Airport for Yakima, Washington State, at around 3pm on June 24, 1947 and reported seeing nine blinding, crescent-shaped objects flying at incredible speed towards Mount Adams. But even this is wrong.
The Yakima region, with Mount Adams just to its western perimeter, is still, without doubt, one of the busiest hotspots for UFO activity in the United States.1 Another one hundred miles as the crow flies east-northeast of Mount Adams lies the vast Hanford Nuclear Site. If we were to name anywhere as the birthplace of the modern UFO era, it would arguably be more accurate to give this accolade to Hanford. This was home to the Manhattan Project that spawned the world’s first devastating H-bombs that destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Is it any coincidence, around the time and location of the first crude plutonium enrichment, that the first modern flying disc reports began to come in with any regularity?
It is now clear there were dozens of UFOs reported both visually and on radar for many months prior to June 24, 1947 around the nuclear facility. These included a sighting of three discs at 2.30pm that afternoon, some 30 minutes prior to Arnold’s take-off.2 By late June of 1947, UFO reports were exploding across the USA in numbers never seen before: a report by Ted Bloecher, later used by The Rand Corporation, suggests 853 sightings of unexplained aerial phenomena in June and July of 1947.3 Of course, it is open to discussion that all kinds of aerial phenomena had been reported for centuries or millennia. But the fact that one of the most highly classified projects in the United States at that time was having its airspace penetrated by objects of unknown nature and origin was not only a cause for alarm, it was also highly embarrassing.
With these very early flying disc reports lie the origins of what would become an important factor in the way the US government and military would publicly deal with the modern UFO enigma. There was evidently a need to classify, deceive and obfuscate in order to cover up these inexplicable incursions into restricted airspace. And by the time UFOs had really grabbed the public’s imagination, those responsible for keeping Hanford’s secrets (both of a nuclear and a potentially more esoteric nature) would certainly have had no issue with Arnold’s sighting (which made no mention of Hanford) being placed front and center. Kenneth Arnold’s famous sighting was by no means the first UFO sighting, but it was the first to capture mass media attention. Just over two weeks later, Roswell would hit the newswires. Mythology was in the making.
So, over the next seventy years, how did we go about attempting to assimilate into our culture those things that continued to defy rational explanation or didn’t fit within our scientific understanding? On the one hand, we ridiculed or ignored them and said that they didn’t exist. On the other, and in the absence of much real information at all, we mythologized—we made much of it up. The modern UFO era heralded the arrival of the flying saucers. Whatever their true nature, it seems fair to say they were and are “vehicles” for the hopes, dreams, and fears of a New Age.
I’m going to attempt to explain why I think almost everything you think you know about flying saucers is wrong.
UFO Social E
ngineering 101
i. The Subject That Covers Itself Up
Back in April 2012, I interviewed the stalwart UFO investigator Stan Gordon. For over fifty years, Stan has been a frontline investigator in Pennsylvania, his primary focus gathering thousands of field reports of all things paranormal. He told me that some of the things reported in his cases were so weird, so bizarre and unsettling, that the subject covers itself up. Nobody wants to go near them.4
The following year, The Citizens Hearings on Disclosure was held in Washington D.C. This was an attempt to present the UFO subject in a respectable light to former members of Congress in a mock congressional hearing. Ufologists wore ties and sensible footwear, spoke with authority on ET contact, and finally got a chance to feel how real UFO Disclosure might one day feel. It was certainly a great dress rehearsal. But that’s only part of the picture, if that’s even part of any picture at all. Where, oh where, were the tales of aliens offering pancakes, the beings that wanted our fairy cakes and our Oreos, the encounter with the giant blob beings, or the brown, dung-like flying objects? They weren’t talked about, and the people who witnessed these things were not invited, and with good reason: they’d make the entire UFO subject seem even more ridiculous.
“High Strangeness” was the term coined by Allen Hynek to label the inexplicable effects and synchronicities of events related to and occurring before, during, and after UFO encounters. I prefer to think of it simply as all the stuff that doesn’t fit into our comfort zone—the experiences people report that challenge our preconceived ideas of what UFOs and the paranormal should be. High Strangeness feels at times like the Death Metal of ufology—and no Death Metal band has ever been invited to the Grammys. But how can we seriously claim to be studying the UFO subject properly without taking all the data into consideration? Should UFO Disclosure day ever come, will High Strangeness even be invited to the big coming-out party? I very much doubt it, for it would make any official announcement, consisting of a singular explanation for UFOs as being of extraterrestrial origin, seem somewhat simplistic and premature. Indeed, it would appear to be screaming, “Not so fast, blithering earth fools!”
UFOs- Reframing the Debate Page 12