T H E U F O H A N D B O O KALLAN HENDRY

02/03 INTRODUCTION

04 STUDYING REPORTS

05/06/07 ALLEGATIONS

08 NOCTURNAL LIGHT/NL

09 DAYLIGHT DISC/ DD

10 RADAR VISUAL/ RV

11 CLOSE ENCOUTERS OF THE FIRST KIND / CE1

12 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE SECOND KIND/ CE2

13 CLOSE ENCOUTERS OF THE THIRD KIND / CE3

14/15 UFOLOGISTS

16/17 UFO TYPE CHART

18/19 ASSOCIATED ENTITIES

20/21 CONCLUSION

22/23 INTERNATIONAL UFO REPORTER

CONTENTS

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

The UFO Handbook

“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

Studying Reports & Alligations

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.

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.

The UFO Handbook

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?

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 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?

The UFO Handbook

Studying Reports & Alligations

Page

“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.

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

AllegationsWe would be dishonest with ourselves if we considered 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

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

OverviewAll 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

DEFINITION :A UFO that is seen by a witness and on radar simultaneously, with good agreement between the accounts. Radar alone is too subject to false images from ground scatter, temperature inversions and other problems to be depended on alone. These cases imply instrumented “proof” of a UFO’s presence as well as a quantitive hancle on its flight characteristics. These are relatively rare occurances.

EXAMPLE: Two control operators with the combines experience of twenty - three years watched a light travel at over 150mph over an extern runway and begin a sharp descent down to three - hundred feet. The tower operators tried unsuccessfully to communicate with the object by radio. Looking at it through binoculars, one operator described it as looking like “a car standing on end” with a light on the bottom. Slowing to 50 mph, the object veered over abrilliantly lit restriced area. These manouvers were also observed on radar as one operator was able to track its trajectory long after it was out of sight. The lieutennant colonel ho prepared the report said that the observers were esteemed and competant, and in his opinion they saw an object that defied identification. Seen at 10:45PM, November 4, 1957, at Kirkland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

Radar Visual / RV

The UFO Handbook

DEFINITION :Discoidal objects seen in the distant daytime sky. “Discoidal” is a broad term here - Dr Hynek permits Cigars, spheres, eggs, ovals, and point sources as well as “flying saucers”. Only a small fraction of all reported activity occurs during the daylight hours; yet, depending on the critical standards imposed, and the data smaple examined, there can be as many genuine DD sightings as NLs.

EXAMPLE :Domed disc, five to six times the suns diameter in the sky, silvery grey, no glare reflected from sun, which was behind the observer. The disc flew on a level, straight course, approximately on quarter mile away; it turned upward and accelerated rapidly in the last two to three seconds, revealing a dark central area underneath. Seen at 4:10PM, October 11, 1974, at Cloudcroft, New Mexico, by a professional astronomer. Reported to the American Astronomical Society’s UFO survey.

Daylight Disc / DD

The UFO Handbook

DEFINITION: Any anomolous lights seen in the distant night sky whose descriptions rule out the possibilities of aircraft lights, stars, meteors and the like. This catagory has the largest share of UFO sightings and the lowest “strangeness” events; they yield little information because of the poor viewing conditions of darkness and a non specific distance.

Nocturnal Light / NL

EXAMPLE: Two stars revolved around eachother, separated by one and one half moon diameters; the orbit was counterclockwise once every two seconds. The revolving abruptly stopped, and the lights remained briefly motionless. They started moving away from eachother; the southbound light halted, but the northbound light continued, faster than aircraft, yet slower than a meteor. Seen at 9:45 PM, May 14, 1970, in Bangor, Maine, for two to three minutes by two witnesses. Reported by an MIT graduate student to the National Center for Atmospheric research.

The UFO Handbook

DEFINITION: A UFO in close proximity (within 500 feet) to the witness. With the introduction of the so called close encounters we arrive at some of the most compelling reports, those sightings that are so close to the witness that the possibility of misperception is minimized. In these accounts the UFO is seen in the immidiate frame of referance of the observer.

Close Encounters of the first kind / CE1

EXAMPLE: A school principle driving home noticed a glow approaching him over a cliff. As it rose over the top, it became clear that it was an object shaped like a world war 1 helmet which he estimated to be over 300 feet in diameter. It remained motionless almost directly overhead momentarily and then headed toward the local airport. The witness was very impressed with the intese white light it was emitting. Joining his friends in a following car, the group watched the UFO hover over power lines for about ten minutes. Witnesses at the airport on an incoming flight also reported the object. Seen at 9PM, on April, 1967, at Jefferson City, Misouri for ten to fifteen minutes by multiple

DEFINITION: A close encounter of the first kind that influences the environment in some fashion, usually by leaving physical evidence of its presence or creating electromagnetic interferance. Like radar visuals, this catagory is commonly regarded as holding more concrete “proof” of the presence of a UFO than mere testimony alone. One researcher has prepared a bibliography of 561 cases reported to have left physical traces behind.

Close Encounters of the second kind / CE2

The UFO Handbook

EXAMPLE: Sheriff Weir Clem and Officer Fowler recieved a phone call from a Farmhand who asserted that he saw a two hundred foot-long elliptical UFO fly over his truck, causing the lights and the engine to go out. After the object left the area, the truck regained power. This was only the first on ten independant reports within a ten mile radius of the town , all reported in less than three hours. Seven on the accounts told of automotive failures that lasted until the UFO departed. By 1:30AM the Sheriff found the UFO across the road last reported “two hundred feet long”, “Oval shaped” and “like a brilliant red sunset”. Seen from 11PM, on November 2, 1957, at Levelland, Texas, by twelve witnesses for tow and a half hours. Reported to the Air Force’s Project Blue Book.

Close Encounters of the third kind / CE3

DEFINITION: A close encounter of the first or second kind, with occupants, or entities assosciated with it. This type of encounter most fires public interest and controversy. Over 1,200 aleged incidents of this type have been catalogued from all available sources by UFO researchers.

The UFO Handbook

EXAMPLE: A member of a back woods family returned to his home to decribe a UFO that he saw descend into the gully near the family’s farmhouse. Within an hour, the seven men, women and children were watching, and firing upon a number of small creatures with large round, bald heads, big eyes, spindly bodies and long arms. The bullets seemed inneffectual against them and the family rushed to the police department. All seven member of the family related the same details and have held adamantly to them. Seen the evening of August 21, 1955, in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, by seven witnesses, for four hours. Listed in the Air Force Project Blue files as “unidentified”.

INTERNATIONAL

U F OR E P O R T E R

Send completed form to Allan Hendry c/o International UFO reporter 1609 Sherman Ave, suite 207 Evanston, IL 60201

CASE# ___-____-_____TYPE:____________________________________EM PH.TR PHYS RAD PHOTO HUMREFERED BY _______________________________________________________________________

W I T N E S S

E N V I R O N M E N T

PHONE _______________________________NAME________________________________ADRESS______________________________CITY_________________________________STATE____________ZIP_________________

YOUR ACTIVITY PRIOR TO THE SIGHTING? _____________________________________________________WHAT GOT YOUR ATTENTION?__________________________________________________________________DID YOU WATCH THE ONJECT CONTINUOUSLY? ( ) YES ( ) NO ( ) OTHERS DIDVISUAL AIDS: ( ) NONE ( ) GLASSES ( ) BINOCULARS ( ) CAMERA:____________________________________________________________________________________DID THE OPTICS IMPROVE YOUR OBSERVING?_________________________________________________

WHAT WERE YOUR REACTIONS?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________WHAT AGENCIES DID YOU CALL? ( ) POLICE ( ) CENTER ( ) PRESS ( ) MILITARY( ) SEEN ON RADAR?___________________________________________________________HAVE YOU SEEN A UFO BEFORE? ( ) YES ( ) NOINTERSTED IN SUBJECT PRIOR TO SIGHTING? ( ) YES ( ) INDIFFERENT ( ) NO

DATE: ____________TIME:____________( ) AM ( ) PM( ) EXACT ( ) EST.

VIEW: ( ) OBSTRUCTED ( ) NON OBSTRUCTEDWEATHER: ( ) CLEAR ( ) OVERCAST ( ) RAIN ( ) FOG/MISTWINDY? ____________ WIND DIRECTION?_______________________________________________________

TYPE OF AREA: ( ) URBAN ( ) SUBURBAN ( ) RURAL( ) RESIDENTIAL ( ) INDUSTRIAL ( ) AGRICULTURAL STREET______________________________________________________________COUNTY_____________________________________________________________STATE_________________ ( ) INDOORS ( ) OUTDOORS

SEX: ( ) MALE ( ) FEMALE AGE:_________OCCUPATION:_________________________EDUCATION:__________________________ANIMALS PRESENT? __________________ ANY REACTIONS?_____________________

LIST OTHER WITNESSES NAMES AND NUMBERS:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A P P E A R A N C E

M O T I O N

NUMBER OF OBJECTS SEEN: ( ) ONE ( ) __APPARENT SIZE SIMILAR TO: ( ) STAR ( ) PLANE ( ) MOON

ACTUAL SIZE: ________________________(optional)

OUTLINE: ( ) SHARP, DISTINCT( ) VAGUE, FUZZY( ) TOO DARK ( ) N/A

SOUND:( ) NONE( ) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

LUMINOSITY: ( ) UNCERTAIN ( ) SELF LUMINOUS ( ) REFLECED LIGHT ( ) FLASHINGINTESITY: ( ) STAR ( ) AIRCRAFT ( ) INTENSE ( ) BLINDING ( ) CHANGING

( ) TRAIL? ( ) SURROUNDING HAZE? ( ) BEAMS? ( ) SPIKES? ( ) GLOW?COLOUR____________LENGTH/POSITION_____________________DURATION________________________

OTHER DETAILS _____________________________________________________________________________

DIRECTION_________ANGLE______________MANNOR_____________________________TRAJECTORY: (In terms of angles and directions above the horizon)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________DURATION: _________HRS________MIN_________SECSPEED: ( ) STATIONARY ( ) SLOW PLANE ( ) FASTER THAN PLANE ( ) EXTR. FAST

Sketch the UFOs Appearace here.

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.

Al lan 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