RR0/rr0.org

<!--#include virtual="/header-start.html" -->
<title>Déclaration du docteur J. Allen Hynek ‑ Symposium sur les ovnis</title>
<a href="https://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/hynek.html">Déclaration du docteur J. Allen Hynek</a>
<!--#include virtual="/header-start.html" -->
<ol>
  <li><a href="#biog">Biographie</a></li>
  <li><a href="#stmt0">Début de la déclaration orale</a></li>
  <li><a href="../../../../../5/2/12/Hynek_UnusualAerialPhenomena_JOSA/index_fr.html">Article lu into the Record</a>
  </li>
  <li><a href="#stmt1">Suite de la déclaration orale</a></li>
  <li><a href="../../../../6/10/21/Hynek_UFOsMeritScientificStudy_Science/index_fr.html">Lettre lue into the Record</a>
  </li>
  <li><a href="#stmt2">Conclusion de la déclaration orale</a></li>
  <li><a href="#questions">Questions des membres du Comité</a></li>
</ol>
<p><a id="biog"></a>(La biographie du Dr. <a href="/people/h/HynekJosefAllen/index.html">Hynek</a> suit :)
</p>
<p><a href="/people/h/HynekJosefAllen/index.html">Dr. J. Allen Hynek</a></p>
<p>
  Né à Chicago (Illinois) en 1910. B.S. Université de Chicago, 1931; Ph. D. (astrophysique) 1935.
</p>
<p>
  Professeur d'astronomie, Président du Département et Directeur de l'Observatoire Dearborn, Northwestern University,
  1960 à aujourd'hui.
</p>
<p>
  Chief of the Section, Upper Atmosphere Studies and Satellite Tracking and Associate Director, Smithsonian
  Astrophysical Observatory, 1956-60.
</p>
<p>
  Professeur, Astronomie, 1950-56, Ohio State University.
</p>
<p>
  Instructor, Physics and Astronomy, Ohio State University, 1935-41; Asst. Prof. 1941-45; Associate Professor 1946-50.
</p>
<p>
  Asst. Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago, 1934.
</p>
<p>
  Astronomer, Perkins Observatory, Ohio State, 1935-56.
</p>
<p>
  Assistant Dean of the Graduate School 1950-53.
</p>
<p>
  Supervisor of Technical Reports, Applied Physical Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, 1942-46.
</p>
<p>
  Visiting Lecturer, Harvard University, 1956-60.
</p>
<p>
  Civilian with U.S. Navy 1944.
</p>
<p>
  Sociétés Scientifiques : <a href="../../../../../../../../AAAS.html ">American Association for the Advancement of
  Science</a>; Astronomy Society (secretary).
</p>
<p>
  Specialty: Astrophysics.
</p>
<p>
  Centres d'intér êt : Spectroscopy stellaire; Etoiles de type F ; scintillation stellaire.
</p>
<h2><a id="stmt0"></a>Déclaration du Dr J. Allen Hynek, Directeur du Département d'Astronomie de l'Université
  Northwestern à Evanston (Illinois)
</h2>

<p>
  <b>Dr. Hynek.</b> Merci.
</p>
<p>
  Mon nom est <a href="/people/h/HynekJosefAllen/index.html">J. Allen Hynek</a>. Je suis professeur d'astronomie à la
  Northwestern University, Evanston (Illinois), où je sert en tant que président du département d'astronomie et
  directeur du Centre de Recherche Astronomique Lindheimer. J'ai également servi durant de nombreuses années, et sert
  toujours, en tant que conseiller scientifique pour l'U.S. Air Force sur les Objets Volants Non Identifiés, ou OVNIs.
  Aujourd'hui, cependant, je parle en tant que citoyen et scientifique privé et non pas en tant que représentant de
  l'Air Force.
</p>
<p>
  Nous sommes ici aujourd'hui, [I gather], pour examiner si le phénomène ovni est digne d'une attention scientifique
  sérieuse. J'espère que mes commentaires pourront contribuer à votre compréhension du problème et aideront à mener à sa
  solution éventuelle.
</p>
<p>
  Le problème ovni est avec nous depuis des années maintenant. Il serait difficile de trouver un autre sujet ayant
  reclamé autant d'attention dans la pression mondiale, dans la conversation des gens de tous bords, et ayant capturé
  l'imagination de tant de personnes, sur une si longue période de temps. Le terme OVNI, ou soucoupe volante, peut être
  trouvé dans les langues et les dictionnaires de tous les peuples civilisés, and if one were to collect all the words
  that have been printed in newspapers, magazines, and books in the past two decades, it would be a staggering
  assemblage. La bibliographie sur le sujet récemment compilée à la Bibliothèque du Congrès is a most impressive
  document, and illustrates that the UFO became a problem for the librarian even before it did for the scientist.
</p>
<p>
  Comme nous le savons tous, le monde scientifique est un monde de calculs exacts, de données quantitatives,
  d'expériences contrôlées en laboratoire, et de lois et principles en apparence bien compris. Le phénomène ovni ne
  semble pas s'accomoder de ce monde ; il semble flaunt itself before our present-day science.
</p>
<p>
  Le sujet des ovnis a engendré une réaction émotionnelle excessive in certain quarters and has far more often called
  forth heated controversy rather than calm consideration. Most scientists have preferred to remain aloof from the fray
  entirely, thereby running the risk of "being down on what they were not up on," as the old adage goes.
</p>
<p>
  It is unlikely that I would have become involved in the study of the UFO phenomenon had I not been officially asked to
  do so. I probably would have -- and in fact did for a time -- regarded the whole subject as rank nonsense, the product
  of silly seasons, and a peculiarly American craze that would run its course as all popular crazes do.
</p>
<p>
  I was asked by the Air Force 20 years ago to assist them, as an astronomer, in weeding out those reports arising from
  misidentification of planets, stars, meteors, and other celestial objects and events. In the course of doing my
  "homework" I found that some 30 percent of the then current cases very probably had astronomical causes, but my
  curiosity was aroused by some of the patently nonastronomical reports.
</p>
<p>
  These were ostensibly being explained by the consultant psychologist, but I frequently had the same feeling about the
  explanations offered for some of these cases that I have had when I have seen a magician saw a woman in half. How he
  did it was beyond my own field of competence, but I did not question his competence. Yes, I was quite sure that he did
  not actually saw the woman in half!
</p>
<p>
  My curiosity thus once aroused led me to look into reports other than those of a purely astronomical nature, and in
  the course of years I have continued to do so. I have pondered over the continuing flow of strange reports from this
  and a great many other countries, for it is a gross mistake to think that the United States has any exclusive claim to
  the UFO phenomenon.
</p>
<p>
  Those reports which interested me the most -- and still do -- were those which, apparently written in all seriousness
  by articulate individuals, nonetheless seemed so preposterous as to invite derisive dismissal by any scientist
  casually introduced to the subject. Such baffling reports, however, represent a relatively small subset of reports. I
  did not -- and still do not -- concern myself with reports which arise from obvious misidentifications by witnesses
  who are not aware of the many things in the sky today which have a simple, natural explanation. These have little
  scientific value, except perhaps to a sociologist or an ophthalmologist; it matters not whether 100 or 100,000 people
  fail to identify an artificial satellite or a high-altitude balloon.
</p>
<p>
  The UFO reports which in my opinion have potential scientific value are those -- and this may serve us as a working
  definition of UFO's -- are those reports of aerial phenomena which continue to defy explanation in conventional
  scientific terms. Many scientists, not familiar with the really challenging UFO data, will not accept the necessity
  for a high order of scientific inquiry and effort to establish the validity of the data -- and therefore such
  detailed, conscientious, and systematic inquiry has yet to be undertaken.
</p>
<p>
  We cannot expect the world of science to take seriously the fare offered at airport newsstands and paperback shelves.
</p>
<p>
  I have been asked by some why, as consultant to the Air Force for so many years, I did not alert the scientific world
  to the possible seriousness of the UFO problem years ago. The answer is simple; a scientist must try to be sure of his
  facts. He must not cry "wolf" unless he is reasonably sure there is a wolf.
</p>
<p>
  I was painfully aware, and still am, of the amorphous nature of the UFO data, of the anecdotal nature of UFO reports,
  of the lack of followup and serious inquiry into reports (which would have required a large scientific staff and
  adequate funding), of the lack of hardware, of the lack of unimpeachable photographic evidence, and of the almost
  total lack of quantitative data -- of all those things which are part and parcel of the working environment of the
  scientist.
</p>
<p>
  I was aware that in order to interest scientists, hard-core data were needed, and, while the store of unquestionably
  puzzling reports from competent witnesses continued to grow the wherewithal to obtain such hard-core data which would,
  once and for all, clinch the matter, was not forthcoming. Thus my scientific reticence was based on a carefully
  weighed decision.
</p>
<p>
  In attempting analysis of the UFO problem today, I pay particular attention to reports containing large amounts of
  information which are made by several witnesses, if possible, who as far as I can ascertain, have unimpeachable
  reputations and are competent. For example, I might cite a detailed report I received from the associate director of
  one of the Nation's most important scientific laboratories, and his family.
</p>
<p>
  Reports such as these are obviously in a different category from reports which, say, identify Venus as a hovering
  spaceship, and thus add to the frustrating confusion.
</p>
<p>
  On the other hand, when one or more obviously reliable persons reports -- as has happened many times -- that a
  brightly illuminated object hovered a few hundred feet above their automobile, and that during the incident their car
  motor stopped, the headlights dimmed or went out, and the radio stopped playing, only to have these functions return
  to normal after the disappearance of the UFO, it is clearly another matter.
</p>
<p>
  By what right can we summarily ignore their testimony and imply that they are deluded or just plain liars? Would we so
  treat these same people if they were testifying in court, under oath, on more mundane matters?
</p>
<p>
  Or, if it is reported, as it has been in many instances over the world by reputable and competent persons, that while
  they were sitting quietly at home they heard the barnyard animals behaving in a greatly disturbed and atypical manner
  and when, upon investigating, found not only the animals in a state of panic but reported a noiseless -- or sometimes
  humming -- brightly illuminated object hovering nearby, beaming a bright red light down onto the surroundings, then
  clearly we should pay attention. Something very important may be going on.
</p>
<p>
  Now, when in any recognized field of science an outstanding event takes place, or a new phenomenon is discovered, an
  account of it is quickly presented at a scientific meeting or is published in a respected appropriate journal. But
  this is certainly not the case with unusual UFO reports made by competent witnesses.
</p>
<p>
  There appears to be a scientific taboo on even the passive tabulation of UFO reports. Clearly no serious work can be
  undertaken until such taboos are removed. There should be a respectable mechanism for the publication, for instance,
  of a paper on reported occurrences of electromagnetic phenomena in UFO encounters.
</p>
<p>
  It would be foolhardy to attempt to present such a paper on UFO's to the American Physical Society or to the American
  Astronomical Society. The paper would be laughed down, if all that could be presented as scientific data were the
  anecdotal, incomplete, and nonquantitative reports available. Consequently reports of unexplainable UFO cases are'
  likely to be found, if at all, in pulp magazines and paperbacks, of which the sole purpose of many seems to be, apart
  from making a fast buck for the authors, to titillate the fancy of the credulous.
</p>
<p>
  Indeed, in such newsstand publications three or four UFO reports are frequently sensationalized on one page with gross
  disregard for accuracy and documentation; the result is that a scientist if he reads them at all is very likely to
  suffer mental nausea and to relegate the whole subject to the trash heap.
</p>
<p>
  This is the first problem a scientist encounters when he takes a look at the UFO phenomenon. His publicly available
  source material is almost certain to consist of sensational, undocumented accounts of what may have been an actual
  event. Such accounts are much akin, perhaps, to the account we might expect from an aborigine encountering a
  helicopter for the first time, or seeing a total eclipse of the sun. There is nowhere a serious scientist can turn for
  what he would consider meaningful, hard-core data as hard core and quantitative as the phenomenon itself permits at
  present.
</p>
<p>
  Here we come to the crux of the problem of the scientist and the UFO. The ultimate problem is, of course, what are
  UFO's; but the immediate and crucial problem is, How do we get data for proper scientific study? The problem has been
  made immensely more difficult by the supposition held by most scientists, on the basis of the poor data available to
  them, that there couldn't possibly be anything substantial to UFO reports in the first place, and hence that there is
  no point to wasting time or money investigating.
</p>
<p>
  This strange, but under the circumstances understandable attitude, would be akin to saying, for instance, let us not
  build observatories and telescopes for the study of the stars because it is obvious that those twinkling points of
  light up there are just illusions in the upper atmosphere and do not represent physical things.
</p>
<p>
  Fortunately, centuries ago there were a few curious men who did not easily accept the notion that stars were illusory
  lights on a crystalline celestial sphere and judged that the study of the stars might be worthwhile though, to many, a
  seemingly impractical and nonsensical venture. The pursuit of that seemingly impractical and possibly unrewarding
  study of astronomy and related sciences, however, has given us the highly technological world we live in and the high
  standard of living we enjoy -- a standard which would have been totally impossible in a peasant society whose eyes
  were never turned toward the skies.
</p>
<p>
  Can we afford not to look toward the UFO skies; can we afford to overlook a potential breakthrough of great
  significance? And even apart from that, the public is growing impatient. The public does not want another 20 years of
  UFO confusion. They want to know whether there really is something to this whole UFO business and I can tell you
  definitely that they are not satisfied with the answers they have been getting. The public in general maybe
  unsophisticated in scientific matters, but they have an uncanny way of distinguishing between an honest scientific
  approach and the method of ridicule and persiflage.
</p>
<p>
  As scientists, we may honestly wish to see whether there is any scientific paydirt in this international UFO
  phenomenon. But to discover this paydirt we must devote serious study to UFO's. To make serious study possible,
  however, requires recruiting competent scientists, engineers, and technical people, as well as psychologists and
  sociologists.
</p>
<p>
  This in turn requires not only funds but a receptive scientific climate. Many scientists have expressed to me
  privately their interest in the problem and their desire to actively pursue UFO research as soon as the scientific
  stigma is removed. But as long as the unverified presumption is strongly entrenched that every UFO has a simple,
  rational everyday explanation, the required climate for a proper and definitive study will never develop.
</p>
<p>
  I recall an encounter I had sometime ago with the then chief scientist at the Pentagon. He asked me just how much
  longer we were "going to look at this stuff." I reminded him that we hadn't really looked at it yet that is, in the
  sense, say, that the FBI looks at a kidnapping, a bank robbery, or a narcotics ring.
</p>
<p>
  Up to this point I have not discussed another major impediment to the acceptance of the UFO phenomenon as legitimate
  material for scientific study. I refer to the adoption of the UFO phenomenon by certain segments of the public for
  their own peculiar uses. From the very start there have been psychically unbalanced individuals and pseudoreligious
  cultist groups -- and they persist in force today -- who found in the UFO picture an opportunity to further their own
  fanciful cosmic and religious beliefs and who find solace and hope in the pious belief that UFO's carry kindly space
  brothers whose sole aim is a mission of salvation.
</p>
<p>
  Such people "couldn't care less" about documentation, scientific study, and careful critical consideration. The
  conventions and meetings these people hold, and the literature they purvey, can only be the subject of derisive
  laughter and, I must stress, it is a most serious mistake for anyone to confuse this unfortunate aspect of the total
  UFO phenomenon with the articulate reports made by people who are unmistakably serious and make their reports out of a
  sense of civic duty and an abiding desire to know the cause of their experience.
</p>
<p>
  It may not be amiss here to remark in passing that the "true believers" I have just referred to are rarely that ones
  who make UFO reports. Their beliefs do not need factual support. The reporters of the truly baffling UFO's, on the
  other hand, are most frequently disinterested or even skeptical people who are taken by surprise by an experience they
  cannot understand.
</p>
<p>
  Hopefully the time is not far off when the UFO phenomenon can have an adequate and definitive hearing, and when a
  scholarly paper on the nature of UFO reports can be presented before scientific bodies without prejudice. Despite the
  scientific attitude to this subject in the past, I nevertheless decided to present a short paper on UFO's to a
  scientific body in 1952, following a scientific hunch that in the UFO phenomenon we were dealing with a subject of
  great possible importance.
</p>
<p>
  Dans mon <a href="../../../../../5/2/12/Hynek_UnusualAerialPhenomena_JOSA/index_fr.html">article</a> (JOSA 43, pp.
  311-314, 1963), which I should like to have read into the record, I made reference to the many cases in 1952 and
  earlier which were nonastronomical in nature and did not seem to have a logical, ready explanation.
</p>
<p><a id="stmt1"></a> I cautioned against the then prevalent attitude of ridicule, pointing out that the UFO phenomenon,
  which had generated vast public interest, represented an unparalleled opportunity to demonstrate to the public the
  operation of the scientific method in attacking a problem, and that "<q>ridicule is not a part of the scientific
    method and the public should not be taught that it is."</q>
</p>
<p>
  In those years and the following ones I repeatedly asked for the upgrading of the method of reporting UFO's to the Air
  Force. In 1960, in a hearing before Congressman Smart and his committee I urged "immediate reaction capabilities" in
  the investigation of UFO reports. The recommendation was applauded but not funded.
</p>
<p>
  As the scientific climate grew more receptive in giving the UFO phenomenon a scientific hearing, I published a letter
  in "Science" (Oct. 21, 1966), not without difficulty, in which I pointed out the following general misconceptions
  regarding UFOs. I should like to have <a
    href="../../../../6/10/21/Hynek_UFOsMeritScientificStudy_Science/index_fr.html">that letter</a> made a part of the
  record.
</p>
<p><a id="stmt2"></a> One great misconception is that only UFO buffs report UFO's; quite the opposite is the case, as is
  the misconception that the most baffling reports come from unreliable, unstable, and uneducated people. Most reports
  of this baffling sort which I at least receive in my mail, are remarkably articulate.
</p>
<p>
  Other misconceptions are that UFO's are never reported by scientifically trained people, are never seen at close
  range, have never been detected on radars, and have never been recorded by scientific cameras.
</p>
<p>
  It is well to remind ourselves at this point of the definition of an UFO: those aerial phenomena reports which
  continue to defy explanation in conventional scientific terms, even after appropriate study. There is no point to be
  interested in anything else; lights at night which might be aircraft, balloons, meteors, or satellite re-entries all
  these fit more readily into the category of IFO's or identified flying objects.
</p>
<p>
  In other words, only truly unidentified cases should be of interest. The Air Force has its own definition of an
  unidentified case, and it has many hundreds in its files. The Air Force calls a sighting unidentified when a report
  apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of
  the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena. .
</p>
<p>
  It is most logical to ask why do not the unidentified in the Air Force files call forth investigative efforts in depth
  and of wide scope. The answer is compound: the Air Force position is that there is no evidence that UFO's represent a
  threat to the national security: consequently it follows that it is not their mission to be scientifically curious
  about the hundreds of unidentified cases in their own files. It may be that, properly investigated, many of the Air
  Force unidentifieds would turn out to be IFO's after all, but it is illogical to conclude that this would be true of
  all unidentified reports. As long as unidentified cases exist, thus bona fide UFO's according to definition, we don't
  know what they are, and these should represent a remarkable challenge to science and an open invitation to inquiry.
</p>
<p>
  But so powerful and all-encompassing have the misconceptions among scientists been about the nature of UFO information
  that an amazing lethargy and apathy to investigation has prevailed. This apathy is unbecoming to the ideals of science
  and undermines public confidence.
</p>
<p>
  Now it is of interest to report that in just the past few years, probably because of the persistent flow of UFO
  reports from this and many other countries (one could base his whole plea for a major investigative effort solely on
  the reports of the years 1966 and 1967) there has been a growing but unheralded interest on the part of more and more
  scientists, engineers, and technicians in doing something positive about the UFO problem. To this growing body of
  qualified people it seems increasingly preposterous to allow another two decades of confusion to exist.
</p>
<p>
  The feeling is definitely on the increase that we should either fish or cut bait, that we should mobilize in earnest
  adequate groups of scientists and investigators, properly funded, adopt a "we mean business" attitude, or drop the
  whole thing. My recommendation is to fish.
</p>
<p>
  As a scientist I can form conclusions from and act upon only reliable scientific data. Such data are extremely scarce
  in the UFO field for reasons already pointed out: it has never been considered worthwhile to improve the
  data-gathering process because the whole subject has been prejudged. Even as a scientist, however, I am permitted a
  scientific hunch, and that hunch has told me for some time, despite the tremendous muddiness of the scientific waters
  in this area, the continued reporting from various parts of the world of unidentified flying objects, reports
  frequently made by people of high repute who would stand nothing whatever to gain from making such reports, that there
  is scientific paydirt in the UFO phenomenon -- possibly extremely valuable paydirt -- and that therefore a scientific
  effort on a much larger scale than any heretofore should be mounted for a frontal attack on this problem.
</p>
<p>
  In saying this I do not feel that I can be labeled a flying saucer "believer" -- my swamp gas record in the Michigan
  UFO melee should suffice to quash any such ideas -- but I do feel that even though this may be an area of scientific
  quicksand, signals continue to point to a mystery that needs to be solved. Can we afford to overlook something that
  might be of great potential value to the Nation?
</p>
<p>
  I am reminded of the old story of the member of Parliament who visited Faraday's laboratory where he was at work on
  early experiments on electrical induction. When asked of what possible value all this might have, Faraday replied,
  "Sir, someday you may be able to tax it." ,
</p>
<p>
  Apart from such inducements, I have the following recommendations to make: first, that a mechanism be set up whereby
  the problem posed by the reports from all over the world, but especially by those in the United States, from people of
  high credibility, can be adequately studied, using all methods available to modern science, and that the investigation
  be accorded a proper degree of scientific respectability and an absence of ridicule so that proper investigations can
  be carried out unhampered by matters not worthy of the ideals of scientific endeavor. I might suggest that this could
  be accomplished by the establishment, by the Congress, of a UFO Scientific Board of Inquiry, properly funded, for the
  specific purpose of an investigation in depth of the UFO phenomenon.
</p>
<p>
  Secondly, I recommend that the United States seek the cooperation of the United Nations in establishing a means for
  the impartial and free interchange among nations of information about, and reports of, unidentified flying objects --
  a sort of international clearinghouse for the exchange of information on this subject. For, since the UFO phenomenon
  is global, it would be as inefficient to study it without enlisting the aid of other nations as it would be to study
  world meteorology by using weather reports from one country alone.
</p>
<p>
  Now, it may be well to remind ourselves at this point, that the UFO problem may not lend itself to an immediate
  solution in our time. The problem may be far more complex than we imagine. Attempts to solve it may be no more
  productive than attempts to solve the problem of the Aurora Borealis would have been 100 years ago.
</p>
<p>
  The cause of northern lights could not have been determined in the framework of the science of 1868. Scientific
  knowledge in those days was not sufficient to encompass the phenomenon.
</p>
<p>Similarly, our scientific knowledge today may be grossly insufficient to encompass the problem posed by UFO's. A
  profound scientific obligation exists, nonetheless, to gather the best data possible for scientific posterity.
</p>
<p>
  To summarize: in the course of 20 years of study of UFO reports and of the interviewing of witnesses, I have been led
  to a conclusion quite different from the one I reached in the very first years of my work. At first I was negatively
  impressed with the low scientific content of UFO reports, with the lack of quantitative data, with the anecdotal
  nature of the reports, and especially with the lack of hardware, of unimpeachable photographs, and with the lack of
  instru- mental recordings.
</p>
<p>
  I am still aware of the paucity of truly hard-core data -- but then, no effort has really been made to gather it.
  Nonetheless, the cumulative weight of continued reports from groups of people around the world whose competence and
  sanity I have no reason to doubt, reports involving close encounters with unexplainable craft, with physical effects
  on animals, motor vehicles, growing plants, and on the ground, has led me reluctantly to the conclusion that either
  there is a scientifically valuable subset of reports in the UFO phenomenon or .that we have a world society containing
  people who are articulate, sane, and reputable in all matters save UFO reports.
</p>
<p>
  Either way, I feel that there exists a phenomenon eminently worthy of study. If one asks, for what purpose, I can only
  answer -- how does one ever know where scientific inquiry will lead. If the sole purpose of such a study is to satisfy
  human curiosity, to probe the unknown, and to provide intellectual adventure, then it is in line with what science has
  always stood for.
</p>
<p>
  Scientific inquiry has paid off, even though pioneers like Faraday, Curie, Hahn, Pasteur, Goddard, and many others
  little realized where the paths they blazed would lead. As far as UFO's are concerned, I believe we should investigate
  them for the simple reason that we want to know what lies behind this utterly baffling phenomenon even more simply, we
  want to find out what it's all about.
</p>
<p>
  Merci.
</p>
<a id="questions"></a>

<p>
  <b>M. Roush.</b> Merci, Dr. Hynek.
</p>
<p>
  Although we have reserved the latter part of the afternoon for our roundtable discussion, the Chair is well aware the
  Members of Congress, because of other duties, may not find it possible to be here during that time.
</p>
<p>
  If any of my colleagues do have questions and can keep them brief, which I realize is impossible, I will entertain
  those questions at this time. But keep in mind that we have two more papers this morning, and three this afternoon.
</p>
<p>
  <b>M. Hechler.</b> M. le Présiednt.
</p>
<p>
  <b>M. Roush.</b> Mr. Hechler.
</p>
<p>
  <b>M. Hechler.</b> First I would like to commend you, Mr. Roush, for your initiative in setting up this symposium.
</p>
<p>
  I would like to ask you, Dr. Hynek, whether you consider this scientific board of inquiry which you outlined as a sort
  of a one-shot thing which would make its report, or do you consider this to be a continuing body that could examine,
  as the Air Force has, reports and analyze them? And with this question, I would like to ask if your assumption is that
  the Air Force, because of its emphasis on national security, has really not measured up to a thorough scientific
  analysis of UFO's?
</p>
<p>
  <b>Dr. Hynek.</b> Well, in answer to the first part of that question, sir, I would say I don't believe in a problem as
  complex as this the one-shot approach would be sufficient. I think there should be this board of inquiry which should
  be a continuing board in the same sense that we have, I presume, boards of study for world population problems, of
  pollution problems, of world health, and so forth.
</p>
<p>
  The letter that came with the invitation to speak here, strongly stated that we would not discuss the Air Force
  participation in these matters, and I would like to therefore not speak to that point.
</p>
<p>
  <b>Mr. Roush.</b> Mr. Rumsfeld.
</p>
<p>
  <b>Mr. Rumsfeld.</b> Because of the fact it does look as though we will have a busy afternoon on the floor, I very
  likely will not be present for the remainder of the discussion. I would like to express the hope the other members of
  the panel might at some point comment on the two recommendations that Dr. Hynek has set forth in his paper. Further, I
  would hope that each member of the panel, during the afternoon session, might address himself to the questions of
  priorities.
</p>
<p>
  Assuming that there is some agreement with Dr. Hynek's conclusion that this is an area worthy of additional study,
  then the question for Congress, of course, becomes what is the priority? This is a rather unique situation in that it
  is a scientific question that has reached the public prior to the time that anything beneficial can even be imagined.
  In many instances a scientific effort is not widely known to the public until it is successful.
</p>
<p>
  Each of you are experts in one or more disciplines. I am sure there are a number of things on your shopping lists for
  additional funding. I would be interested to know how this effort that is proposed here might fit into your lists of
  priorities.
</p>
<p>
  Merci, M. le Président.
</p>
<p>
  <b>Mr. Roush.</b> Merci, Mr. Rumsfeld.
</p>
<p>
  Mr. Miller.
</p>
<p>
  <b>Chairman Miller</b>. Docteur, vous avez mentionné un certain nombre de choses -- population studies at least. A
  great many of these are carried out not by Government directly, but in the National Science Foundation or through the
  National Academy of Sciences or scientific bodies themselves.
</p>
<p>
  Do you think, I merely offer this as a suggestion, perhaps the scientific community try to encourage NSF or the
  scientific societies dealing in this field to take the initiative in doing this, rather than to wait for Government to
  take the initiative?
</p>
<p>
  <b>Dr. Hynek</b>. I know, of course, most of the bodies you have mentioned are funded by the Government anyway. Most
  or a great part of our scientific research today has to be so funded. Private sources are certainly not sufficient.
  And, therefore, I think it is rather academic, really, to worry too much about who does it. It is more a question of
  who is going to pay for it.
</p>
<p>
  We have a rather interesting situation here, as Congressman Rumsfeld has already pointed out. This is one of those
  strange situations in which the cart is sort of before the horse. Generally this results in the scientific
  laboratories and the results of the studies of scientists finally come to the public attention, but here we have the
  other situation. it is the public pressure, the public wants to know actually, more than the scientists, at the
  moment. So you are facing public pressures, even, definitely more than scientific pressures at the moment.
</p>
<p>
  <b>Chairman Miller</b>. Unfortunately in some of our problems, for example the NASA problems, where the public is
  indifferent, the matter of waste disposal, pollution, health, and these things. They are quite indifferent to them,
  and it takes a lot of effort to get them interested in them sometimes.
</p>
<p>
  The committee has studied this on several occasions, but we have generally had a group of the scientific community
  behind us to give pressure, to bring pressure, to get some of these things done.
</p>
<p>
  <b>Dr. Hynek</b>. I think we will see, sir, in this testimony today that you will find a corps of scientists stand
  ready to do this. In fact, as I mentioned in my testimony, I have private information from a very large number of
  scientists who are interested.
</p>
<p>
  <b>Chairman Miller</b>. I think this one of the values of the symposium.
</p>
<p>
  <b>M. Roush</b>. Y-a-t-il d'autres questions ou d'autres remarques ?
</p>
<p>
  (Pas de réponse.)
</p>
<p>
  Notre prochain participant est le Dr. James E. McDonald. Dr. McDonald est actuellement avec l'Université d'Arizona. He
  is a senior physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, the University of Arizona, and has had a long and
  distinguished career as a scientist.
</p>
<p>
  Dr. McDonald, nous sommes ravis de vous avoir comme un de nos participants. Vous pouvez poursuivre.
</p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.html" -->