r o!

it' r rtlz' ,rl$os{f'I$

ryY1ry',Y-w!1rylwl1t4rth:!fir*t:x1i1111'ti'f
' .:' '
,
trc
. . , ' j, i

{ 1972 .i
I

'i

Fairchild Industries Germanlown,Maryland20767 {3O11S48-9600 rf

\'
,i

O ttrcs o l th e xi
V i ce P re si d g n t, E n g tneer r ng and Dovslopm gnt December4, L972 r!

Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Director ,:

LindheimerAstronom1ca1ResearchCenter''...
Nort,tmestern University .:
Evanston, Illinois 6020L i

Dear Allen:

Thanks for your letter of November l-3 and itThe UFO Expertencett l

I have not read any of the reports coming out of that press conference
in Rio de Janeiro, buL the'subject of flying saucers was raised by
onJ.y one of the twenty-odd journalists present and was quite peripheral to
Ehe topic discussed. Nevertheless, I am sorry if what came out sounded
t,oo negative, or too pat. Needl-ess to say, at the tender age of 60, I
feel too young to be placed into Max Planckrs category of oLder scientist,s
who never change their minds but merely die away.

Upon questioning by said journal-ist, I did confirm that I have never seen
an UFO myself. I went on to say that an Air Force study conducted out of
Wright Field, under which a full-time project officer followed up on every
UFO report in the Western hemisphere for several years, found that over
90 percent of the reported sightings could be explained by natural
phenomena such as high-flying balloons or aircraft, the planet Venus,
fata morgana effects of distant automobile headlights, planned hoaxes, etc.
I did point out that the Air Force study found there was a hard core of
unresoLved reportings to which satisfactory natural expLanations would
not fit. I went on to say, however, that 90 percent v/as not a poor baCting
average in scientific pursuit, and I probably left the impression that I
couldntt get, too excited about theitperpl-exity residuerr of a few percenL.

Nor,v,I fu1-Ly reaLlze that in science it is often that I'perplexity residueil

that leads to breakthroughs and new insights. For t,his reason, I fully
respect and admire your staunch position againsL peopl-e who pooh-pooh or
ridicule a working hypothesis presented as a possible explanation. The
way science works, it seems, is that any hypothesis is presented as a
worldwide challenge to critics to come up with a better expLanation. Even
aft,er the critics have failed to come up with something more credible, and
Dr . J. A llen Hynek December4, ,1974
Page 1\^ro

'l 'll: i

;,'
.,,'r1;
'
the Hypothesie has graduate-d to becomea Theory (or even a Law), .iiLl','
conttnue t,o pose an open chal.lenge to everybody, for I guegs ft ls
haLlmark'of true science that it demands unLversal acceptanco.
I " ;'!'ii
' ''
Applylng this traditional palttern of enhancing scientifi"c
to UFOrs, it would appear that the follot^ring course rrust

a) A hard, unquestlonable data base of hard observatd.onaL,:

facts must, be esta6lished;
i
,,lr:
irlr 'f
b) A clear 'tuorking hlpothesis" shouLd be fornnrLated and
presented to the critics wlth the attitude: ttlerets our
atterrpt of explanation. Does anyone have anything. better
to o f fe r? tl lii .r',
'l:"'"r
. ll l

Let, me finish this epistl.e lqith rny best wishes for a r"reriy ctrristnasl ana
a Happy New Year 'i''
l;l ;

;..,. sincerely,

Wernher von Braun

I^lvB/polu