(Suit la biographie du Dr. Henderson :)
Dr. Garry C. Henderson,
Scientifique chercheur senior, Sciences spatiales,
Fort Worth, Texas.
Garry C. Henderson est né à Brownwood (Texas) le 23 octobre 1935. Il a reçu le diplôme de B.S. en mathématiques de la Faculté d'Etat de Sul Ross à Alpine (Texas) en 1960, le diplôme de M.S. de l'Université A&M du Texas, College Station, en océanographie géophysique en 1962, et le diplôme de doctorat en géophysiques de l'Université A&M du Texas en 1965.
Il a occupé le poste d'assistant de recherche à la fondation de pour la recherche A&M du Texas de 1960 à 1963. Durant cette période il a été technicien, opérateur, et interpréteur de données du LaCoste-Romberg S-9 Sea-Surface Gravity Meter. De février à juin 1962 il a travaillé pour le docteur G. P. Woollard à bord du Vaisseau de Recherche Polaire de la NSF Eltanin où il a été en charge de tester le gravitomètre S-9 et d'interpréter la performance par mètres. Il fut opérateur d'IBM 709 et programmeur sénior dans les sciences physiques pour le Centre de Traitement de Données A&M du Texas jusqu'à la dernière partie de 1964. Il a reçu son doctorat lorsqu'il était au poste de Géophysicien Marin en Chef pour Oceanonics, Inc., où il a travaillé dans les techniques, l'instrumentation et l'interprétation dans les domaines de la gravimétrie, la magnétique, les méthodes électriques et les opérations informatiques. Il a rejoint le Groupe de Recherche Appliquée du la Division de Fort Worth de General Dynamics dans la dernière partie de 1965. Depuis cette époque il a été engagé dans des études de la méthodologie, l'instrumentation et l'interprétation d'investigations géophysiques sur les surfaces lunaires et planétaires, en particulier dans les domaines de la gravimétrie et des méthodes électriques. Il est actuellement Directeur de Projet du système de gravimètre/étude de la surface lunaire et directeur de la section des sciences spatiales du Groupe de Recherche Appliquée.
Le docteur Henderson est membre de Alpha Chi, l'Union Géophysique Americaine, la Société des Géophysiciens d'Exploration, la Société Astronautique Américaine, la Société de Technologie Marine, le Groupe de Travail sur les Resources Extraterrestres et Président du Sous-Comité de Sciences du Comité de Géodésie Marine.
Le but de cet essai n'est pas de réitérer spécifiquement les sentiments de certains membres de la communauté scientifique concernant les phénomènes d'ovnis ; l'objectif ici est plutôt de passer brièvement en revue l'état du problème et d'analyser les moyens à disposition pour acquérir de l'information qui serait suffisamment fiable pour convaincre la communauté scientifique et d'autres de l'existence matérielle ou de la fausseté des ovnis.
Bien que persiste l'image courante du scientifique en tant que front de sagesse et de connaissance infallible, la majorité des activités rapportées de scientifiques concernant des études d'ovnis a été non-professionnelle par nature, i.e., des scientifiques proéminents se sont attelés au problème d'une manière avec laquelle il n'approcheraient certianement pas les problèmes de leurs propres domaines de compétence. Un exemple en est la malheureuse sélection de l'équipe de l'Université du Colorado dirigée par un scientifique respecté, avec pour résultat que l'atmosphère de cage à écureuil généralement associée à l'intérêt pour les ovnis a été augmentée par des biais intrinsèques et une confusion, plutôt que d'être éliminée par l'implication d'un groupe de scientifiques. 1 scientifique a même publié un article dans Science (15 septembre 1967) s1Markovitz, William: The physics and metaphysics of unidentified Flying Objects, Science, 157, pp. 1274-1279, 15 septembre 1967 impliquant que des scientifiques compétents accepteraient la magie (ou "semi-magie") comme une réponse à l'existence des ovnis, et que nos capacités limitées dans leur état actuel pourrait être notre héritage technique ultime. N'y a-t-il pas la plus petite chance que, même aujourd'hui, il reste effectivement quelques phénomènes physiques que nous ne comprenons pas, ou dont nous ne soyons même pas conscient de l'existence -- et peut-être quelques-uns que nous interprétons mal, mais pour lesquels nous sommes astucieusement capables de concocter une "loi" pratique au moyen d'une explication appaisamment s2Sic *NCAS EDITOR'S NOTE: This appears to be a transcription error: "a pleasingly sufficient" fits the context better than "appeasingly sufficient"* suffisante (mais pas nécessairement) ? Si d'"autres" existent, sont-ils limités à notre niveau d'avancement ?
Comme cela a été noté dans le Rapport Spécial du Comité Ad Hoc pour Examiner le Projet "Blue Book" du Comité de Conseil Scientifique de l'USAF (mars 1966), certaines observations classées comme "identifiées" résultaient d'éléments trop maigres ou trop indéfinis pour permettre d'être listées de manière catégorique dans cette catégorie. Les clés to scientific achievement have several notches, but the material is comprised of competent open-mindedness, which appears to have been all too commonly lacking in the topic of concern. Historically, many of the most astonishing accomplishments have been performed by those who persisted even in the fog of ridicule exuded by their capable but narrow-minded colleagues. Several professional, qualified observers with proper instrumentation, planning, and time should be able to devise schemes in an unbiased manner to (1) determine what UFO's ARE NOT, then (2) determine what, if anything tangible, they ARE.
Most thoughtful persons will dismiss the theatrical claims of trips on "saucers." cavorting with little green men, and the like; however, some very plausible reports from highly trained, capable, and reliable individuals cannot be so readily discarded by anyone willing to admit that there are still a few things we do not understand. God help us if our military and commercial pilots and radar facilities so commonly mistake temperature inversions, balloons, atmospheric disturbances, the planet Venus, etc. for maneuvering vehicles. Have you ever tried to convince two veteran pilots that the object they reported sighting on a clear day with CAVU conditions, free of traffic lanes, showing on their radar .screen, exhibiting high maneuverability, in close proximity, etc., is meteoric debris? If so, then the wrong people are being examined.
To my knowledge, all "facts" on UFO's, here and abroad, exist in the form of visual sightings and a few, apparently unretouched photographs. Not to discredit the value of unaided observation, but with our degree of technological sophistication, these are hardly the sort of facts to justify the position of the Air Force (and a few scientists) in their proclamations of "non-existence." The public has been led to believe that everything has been done to either prove or disprove the existence of UFO's -- rubbish! Available information of a truly reliable nature should tend to increase activity, not place it in neglect, or worse, in ridicule.
Classified (or "unavailable") reports, mostly by the military, rob the public and scientific parties who are interested in and willing to participate in the UFO investigations. How can we even begin to evaluate for ourselves if we must depend nearly 100 percent on information doled out by the news media alone? Many scientists communicate with each other on the subject, often at scientific meetings (aside), but this route is hardly sufficient to establish a recognized basis for realistic study of the problem.
The current USAF trend seems to be merely a statement that UFO's do not pose a threat to the security of the United States, and therefore warrant neither credence nor further concern. Similar words come from some of the few Congressmen with whom I have communicated. The discovery of Noah's Ark in Times Square would not necessarily pose a threat to national security either, but it would certainly be a find worthy of the most intensive investigation whether certain individuals accepted its existence or not.
Is it not obvious that what we need to establish the existence or non-existence of UFO's is not merely a review of sighting incidents, but an implemented plan to acquire hard facts? Rapid, accurate reporting of sightings is obviously a valuable tool in studying UFO phenomena, but many of the most creditable observers (military personnel and airline pilots, for example) are not only hesitant to do so, they are understandably adamant when facing the alternatives of silence versus inviting ridicule, and possibly jeopardizing their positions. The obvious addition to gathering interview data is to enlist the aid of the impersonal machine. Evaluate, compile, and catalog reported data according to: time of day and year; atmospheric conditions (cloudy, humid, temperature, calm, and other easily recountable gross observations); geographic location; approximate size, shape, altitude, velocity, heading, maneuvers; and phenomena reportedly associated with the UFO presence. This can be done with existing information. Update and upgrade the files with new data by soliciting information (particularly military and commercial pilots). Then prepare a plan designed by scientists, engineers, pilots, and perhaps psychologists, on means to acquire instrument observations of UFO's hopefully coupled to visual observations.
Field-instrument packages could easily be placed in areas where UFO sightings are most concentrated, perhaps according to the time of day or year, atmospheric conditions, or some factor suspected to 'be related to sighting activity. Such packages might be composed largely of military "surplus" instrumentation such as an infrared scanner, an active rf unit, a wide-band electromagnetic detector, a directional radiation counter and ionization gauge, a high-speed photographic camera, a three-component magnetometer, and recording environmental devices (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc.). If it became advantageous to include a higher degree of sophistication, such items as a tracking television camera, a communications telemetry system, a sensitive audio recorder with a directional antenna might be added. Deployment and maintenance of the field package could easily be performed by military, university, or industrial technicians, but all data reduction and interpretation should be done by competent scientists familiar with the respective measuring techniques.
We should anticipate gathering sufficient data leading to proof of the existence or non-existence of UFO's, and, if they are real, the size(s), shape (s), flight characteristics (speed, rates of turn and climb, preferred direction of travel, etc.), possible means of propulsion and navigation, perhaps the establishment of communications, and eventually their origin.
Questions of expense and management responsibilities immediately come to mind, but I think the government would be surprised how many qualified scientists, engineers, and technicians would be willing to participate on a low-dollar, volunteer, "as can" basis in support of such a program. At least an inexpensive newsletter could be distributed to the scientific and pilot groups for comments, as a start. Because of the history of wasted funds and unwieldy publicity associated with the UFO problem, the public may not be very receptive to such a proposal just for the pure joy of attempting to resolve the problem, unless it turns out that the UFO's are irrefutably proven to be extraterrestrial in origin, thereby gaining incentive as a popular curiosity. A Working Group on UFO's could be painlessly commissioned, much as other working groups comprised of scientists and engineers.
If there are UFO's in existence here, and IF they are extraterrestrial, by mere intuition I seriously doubt that they would be manned. I know of no animal to take the reported g's undergone by some UFO's. In all due fairness to those who believe otherwise, we must readily admit that only a few years ago spacecraft, airplanes, nuclear power, television, human transplants, and many other items presently taken for granted were "impossible," even deemed foolish for consideration.
Conditions in our solar system appear to limit life as we know it (the catch phrase) to Earth, but the probability of almost identical environments just within the visible universe is extremely high. Even if, for some reason obscure to me, life must exist "as we know it," there are, in my opinion, innumerable possibilities of such existence. Manned travel over the required distances would take life-support systems, fuel, and means of propulsion beyond our present ability to deliver in time for us to realize results; therefore it must be impossible if we can't do it!
Certain publicized activities under contract purport to be concerned with scientific and engineering studies related to UFO's (for example, Raytheon's Autometric Division, Stanford Research Institute, University of California, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Ford Motor Company, etc.). These may yield worthwhile results in the UFO study if the primary goal is not to pursue funded research for its own sake, as is too often the case.
There is only one concrete proposal which I would extend at this time. Either we admit (1) that past funds are wasted; (2) that our technology is not up to the job; (3) that we can afford to ignore one of the potentially most significant "phenomena" in the recorded history of the human race; (4) that we will close our minds to that part of human curiosity which seeks to extend our knowledge; and (5) that we are willing to make these decisions on the flimsiest of evidence, i.e., for-the-most-part-personal opinions, OR we will make a long-overdue, concentrated, unemotional effort to ascertain (1) the existence or non-existence of hardware UFO's, and if they exist, (2) the origin of UFO's, (3) the means of propulsion, navigation, and associated operational characteristics of UFO's, (4) the intent of the presence of UFO's, and (5) surely a multitude of knowledge, and perhaps greatly extended capability which would result from studying a UFO craft and communicating with the occupants, if any.