ALLAN HENDRY

T H E U F O H A N D B O O K

02/03 Iintroduction

04/05 Studying Reports

06/07 Allegations

08/14 Overview

15 What have you seen in the sky?

16/17 The International UFO Reporter

18/19 UFO Types

20/21 Ufologists

22/23 Famous UFOs

24/25 Conclusion

Contents

The UFO Handbook

The UFO Handbook

In seeking information about UFOs in the existing books and magazines, I’ve always found myself caught between two extremes; I’m repelled by UFO proponents who immidiately jump to extra ordinary conclusions and yet I am also suspicious of “experts” who dismiss as ridiculous all UFO sightings. In this regard I am probably typical of most people who will read this book... to people who have elected not to commit themselves to the UFO subject because television, newspapers, books and magazines have clearly failed to provide enough substantial information for them to arrive at a valid conclusion. Have these sources reported the facts objectively, or have they coloured them to suit the author’s biases - pro or con? The only way the average person will ever get a straight answer about UFOs is by investigating the subject himself.

Introduction

“We only get to study reports of UFOs - Not the UFOs themselves.”

Studying Reports

This is one of the greatest obstacles to the study of UFOs. Imagine that you are headed up a center for automobile studies and that little was known about automobiles. Your only source on information was people’s excited descriptions of them as they drove by, occasionally leaving tread marks on the ground... and that was all. Still, even these reports would be infinately more coherent than the huge variety of descriptions that are present in the UFO literature; life would be much easier if they were’nt so diverse.

In searching for identities for UFOs, there is a large gulf between description and explanation. There are usually three places where errors of interpretation can enter when written accounts of sightings are considered:

A) The original observation (ignorance of the nature of some otherwise known stimulus; difficult viewing conditions such as darkness, distance and atmospheric distortions; or faulty “causality” conclusions by the witness, such as a dimming light equal to a receeding object);

B) Verbal relaying of memory to investigator (Are false details being filled in? is the investigator “leading” the witness in some way?);

C) Written account by the witness (is he leaving out important information? Is he biasing the outcome?). In short, we must never overlook the compound nature of the UFO

The UFO Handbook The UFO Handbook

Studying Reports & Alligations

reports: “real” details (perceptually available) vs. “reported” details. They can be blended completely, partially, or not at all - and there is no easy way to determine the influence on the final product.

Also, a written or spoken description can serve as an effective buffer between the original object and a true understanding of its nature. We are denied the full sensory stimuli to which the original witness was entitled. Try this example, what is your reaction to the following account?

“An oblong metallic object was seen hovering silently in the distance for two minutes, reflecting sunlight as it held motionless, defying gravity. Then suddenly it picked up speed, executed a sharp turn, and rushed off toward the north.”

A UFO sighting is observed, recalled for an investigator, a secondhand description is published - and the errors compound themselves. It is on this basis that misconceptions are created in the eye of the public and the mass media alike because of the second hand information recieved by the investigator, post interview.

Also, a written or spoken description can serve as an effective buffer between the original object and a true understanding of its nature. We are denied the full sensory stimuli to which the original witness was entitled. Try this example, what is your reaction to the following account?

The UFO Handbook The UFO Handbook

I only quote these figures, however, to give a feel for the number of reports that have been made throughout the years. When the center made a case evaluation of the reports present in the air force files, only 5 per cent of them were worth of the title “UFO”. Almost all the rest were IFOs.

Allegationsconsidered the reports as anything but allegations; this is unfortunate, but neccessary, if we are to treat UFOlogy as a science. Still there are certainly a lot of them; various collections of UFO reports from around the world show that the tens of thousands of sightings have made their way to various reporting agencies. The Center for UFO Studies has a computerised bibliography of over sixty- thousand seperate events. I only quote these figures, however, to give a feel for the number of reports that have been made throughout the years. When the center made a case evaluation of the reports present in the air force files, only 5 per cent of them were worth of the title “UFO”. Almost all the rest were IFOs.

The UFO Handbook

Overview

All the same, the cases that remain display a broad variety of characteristics. Various schemes to reduce this data have been attempted in the past; a six-category system developed by Dr. Hynek has come to be the most popular one and so it will be employed here as a way of classifying UFO types. It seperates all sightings on the basis of proximity, using 500ft as a cut off point; then it performs additional divisions on the basis viewing conditions or special features. Lets survey the scope of reported UFO activity in terms of this system.

The UFO Handbook

Across the page:Obj.1) Cylinder Shaped ObjectObj.2) MotherShipObj.3) Large Saucer TypeObj.4) Sighted over CA, 1957Obj.5) Sighted over Africa, 1942Obj.6) Saturn shaped SaucerObj.7) Rocket Shaped, ItalyObj.8) With Firey Tail, 1947Obj.9) “Trinidad” Saucer, Brazil 1958Obj.10) Type sighted over USA & Italy

Across the page / This page:Obj.11) Oval, 1952Obj.12) New type, Brazil & CAObj.13) Double Basin, 1960Obj.14) Cross sighted over UKObj.15) Winged, Cigar shaped, 1940Obj.16) “Adamski” typeObj.17) Dome shaped, “Common” typeObj.18) Type sighted in CA & OregonObj.19) “Old Saucer” typeObj.20) New “Common” type, 1980

This page:Obj.21) Photographed in New Mexico, 1958Obj.22) Type sighted in 1950, 1959Obj.23) “Foo Fighter” type, 1946Obj.24) Globe shapedObj.25) Type seen in 1947Obj.26) “Foo Fighter” type 2Obj.27) Cone or “Top” shapedObj.28) Cigar Shaped MothershipObj.29) Cigar w. Jetblast, 1952Obj.30) Rhombus shaped object, 1942

Obj. 16

Obj. 19

Obj. 22

Obj. 25

Obj. 28

Obj. 17

Obj. 20

Obj. 23

Obj. 26

Obj. 29

Obj. 18

Obj. 21

Obj. 24

Obj. 27

Obj. 30

UfologistsThe public conception of a UFOlogist generally lies somewhere between a chiropractor and a witch doctor. They are inadequately protrayed as trying to promote an exciting outer space shceme the basis of evidence which the public intuitively realizes has failed to be substantial. Yet how effective can UFOlogists and UFO groups hope to be in resolving the UFO dilemma?

Since a UFO researcher is an expert on aerial anomalies, does that mean that he has to be fully aquainted with all relevant fields to know what is known? While this vision of an impossible renaissance man sounds prohbitive in theory, the situation is not that bleak in practice. As we have seen, the IFO sources tend to be restricted to a small number of items: 90 perent of all IFOs are NL “impostors” and 90 percent of these are restricted to four ommon objects - stars, ad planes, plane lights and meteors, in that order. That there are good private UFO researchers who are prepared to ferret IFO explanations and accept them is certain. The author obtained a great deal of valuable information, for example, out of the writings of one UFO investigator, Mr. Raymond Fowler, and recieved excellent assistance from a number of field investigators around the country. Yet for a field that is composed of individuals who profess to be intrigued by aerial anomolies, there is widespread ignoranceabout even the most basic characterstics of sources like meteors, ad planes and balloons. This ignorance is likely to be a deliberate supression by each UFO researcher, for reasons that are reflected in the motives they demonstrate for their involvement with UFOs. Many researchers become intrigued with the sure and certain hope that they would be lead to a certain source of personal excitement. This emotional predisposition inevitably proves to be a poor framework for the objective handling of raw sighting reports. Another demonstration of motive lies in the degree of

the pretensiousness adopted by many with regard to their work. A UFOlogist most of the time, is an amateur investigative journalist...Myself included. Thus, I wince when i see words like “scientific” and “research” freely affixed to any menial investigative effort in an anecdotal “witness oriented” where science has a hard time manifesting itsself in ways that arent purely sociological.

“Dear sirs: I’m twelve years old and have been investigating UFOs for three years...” - From a letter to the Center for UFO studies.

Image on opposite page:35mm colour photographof alleged UFO fromMantell case.

The UFO Handbook The UFO Handbook

Famous UFOsOn the 24th June 1947, A small private

aircraft flew into the calm summer skies

above Chehalais, Idaho in the United States

and turned on a course for Yakima in the

state of Washington. Piloting the plane was

businessman Kenneth Arnold who was thaty

day destined to go into History as the man

who “invented” the flying saucer. As Arnold

flew near mount Rainor, he saw nine bright

metallic disc - shaped objects undulating

across the mountainous air at a speed that he

estimated to be 1,700 mph. In those days that

was considered an incredible speed - it was

to be four months before the sound barrier

(approx 750mph) was to be broken by Chuck

Yeager in the X - 1 rocket plane.

It was’nt so much the speed of the object that

was significant however, as the description

that arnold gave over to Newsmen who were

waiting for him at Pendleton, Oregon, ater an

onward flight from Yakima. Arnold described

the sight as watching “ a saucer skipping

across water” and as a result of the worldwide

coverage given to his sighting in the media,

the term “Flying Saucer” become part of our

language.

He was’nt the first person to see an unidentified

flying object (UFO), or in thie case 9, but at

least he did come out of his experience alive.

Which is more than can be said of captain

Thomas Mantell of the United states Airforce.

On 7th January 1948, at Godman Airbase

Fort Knox, Texas, the daily bustle of aviation

was interupted by the appearance of a huge

object about 250 ft across, and glowing red. It

appeared to be hovering overhead.

Four planes were scrambled. Heading the

squadron of F - 51’s as the screamed into the

air was Captain Mantell. He chased the object

and reported “ It looks metallic, tremendous

size. I’m going to follow it up to 2,000 feet.”

These were his last words. His body was

fond in the wreckage of his disintegrated

F- 51 plane. What happened? Had he been

destroyed by the crew of an inter planetary

flying saucer?

Arnold and Mantell are two well known names

in UFO history; A third is Adamski. It was

George Adamski, who on the 2oth November,

1952, claimed that he met a man from Venus

who landed in a saucer shaped object, which

had separated from a cigar shaped vehicle

sighted in the sky by not only by Adamski, but

by his 6 companions.

Had Adamski hoaxed the world? In any event,

he had made alot of money out of his sighting,

giving talks all over the United States in

support of the existance of UFOs. Adamski’s

sighting is the most difficult to believe.

Particularly as recent explorations of Venus by

US and Soviet spacecraft called Mariner and

Venera have indicated that the temperature on

the surface is 900 Degrees F. The atmospheric

pressure is 90 times that of earth’s and winds

up to 40 Knots rage. No humanoid person,

which this purported Venusian looked like

could possibly survive in those conditions.

“He” could concievably survive in the

Martian atmosphere. Surface conditions were

sampled by Vikings one and two, 1976, but the

spacecraft showed no signs of life.

Astronomer Cedric Allingham claimed that he

met a Martian in Scotland on 18th February

1954. Can we really believe this now?

The UFO Handbook The UFO Handbook

Image on opposite page:Photograph taken by GeorgeAdamski in 1952. This UFOwas coined “The Adamski type”.

The reader of this book will realize by now that the study of UFOlogy is not a true science. We do possess provocative UFO reports that ensure our interest. We do have a guaranteed sociological phenomenon of no mean importance. We also have a profound emotional climate surroudning the whole UFO subject which is affecting our objectivity in everything from the accurate reporting of sightings to the formation of hypothesis about collected reports. In the absence of any probative tools or techniues to help us prove that at least some of the UFO alligations are accrate, protrayals of extraordinary events, no legitamate framework for studyinf phenomenon currently exists. After examining 1,300 UFO reports first hand, on a case by case basis, I am still no closer to the nature of the this complex beast than when I started. After I have weeded out the “easy” IFOs and 10 per cent of the reports remain as “unworthy” UFOs, I still cannot confidently draw the distinction between a “real” physical phenonmenon and a complex misperception, a “real” physical CE3 event and sophisticated fantasy, a “real” physical trace case and a false match of IFO and un- related artifact. This is true despite the fact that I have tried to exploit every device, system or tool to which I can gain access.

I do not endevour to argue that UFOs do not, in some form, exist, ineed; why shouldnt they? The 20th Century hardly understands everything that is seen in its complex skies. Personally, I want there to be animalistic UFOs that defy the laws of physics, for the simple reason, that it would usher a new scientific revolution. But with our current inability to fully draw the distinction between real UFOs and IFOs, fantasies or hoaxed, coupled with a heated emotional atmosphere, I can only assert that it is my ffeeling that some UFO reports represent truly remarkable events... and while science may be initiated by feelings, it cannot be based on them. Unless we develop drastically new ideas and methodologies for the study of baffling UFo cases and the uman context in which they occur, we will watch the next thirty years of UFO report gathering simply mirror the futility and frustration of the last thirty years.

Conclusion

The UFO Handbook The UFO Handbook

No Information is available for the image across the page.

SourcesThe UFO Handbook - Allan HendryUFOs: The Startling Truth - UnknownIllustration & Design By Jonathan Packham

The UFO Handbook The UFO Handbook

The UFO Handbook is the f i rst of i ts k ind on UFOs. I t is both a “how to guide for the invest igator, l ist ing tools, techniques and procedures of enquiry and a cr i t ical examinat ion of the methods now employed by the amateurs and experts al ike.

Allan Hendry has col lected over 1,300 UFO cases over a per iod of one year adopt ing a new system of catagorisat ion devised by Dr. J . Al len Hynek, the worlds leading UFO expert . The result h ighl ights the problems of ver i f icat ion and provides the s imple steps neccessary to conf irm genuine s ight ings of common UFO phenomena wether they be nocturnal l ights, dayl ight discs or c lose encounters of the f i rst , second or third kind.

0 7 2 2 1 4 5 0 5 C O S M O L O G Y