THE HYNEK RATING SYSTEM As a tribute to Dr. Hynek, I have proposed that his matrix of Stra
THE HYNEK RATING SYSTEM
As a tribute to Dr. Hynek, I have proposed that his matrix of
Strangeness vs. Probability be effectuated and calibrated as outlined
below, and named "the Hynek Scale" or "the Hynek Rating System" in his
The "Strangeness" factor of a case description shall be rated from 1 to
5 as follows:
1 - Explained or Explainable
2 - Probably Explainable, with more data
3 - Possibly Explainable, but with elements of strangeness
4 - Strange; Does not conform with known principles
5 - Highly Strange; Definitely indicative of intelligent guidance
S1 - Aircraft, meteor, etc.
S2 - Experimental aircraft; planet or star
S3 - Slow, low flying objects in formation
S4 - BOL (Ball of Light Phenomena); physical traces
S5 - Close Encounters, Abductions, etc.
The "Probability" factor of a case relates to the credibility, number
and separation of witnesses and/or the soundness of evidence gathered.
It shall be rated from 1 to 5 as follows:
1 - Not Credible or Sound
2 - Unreliable; Smacks of Hoax
3 - Somewhat credible or indeterminate
4 - Credible; Sound
5 - Highly Credible, leaving almost no doubt
P1 - Known Hoaxer or UFO "Flake"; Hoax Photo
P2 - Repeat Witness; Conflicting Testimony
P3 - Standard, first-time witness; slight radiation reading
P4 - Multiple witnesses; pilot; clear photo
P5 - National Figure; Multiple independent witnesses; videotape
The composite Hynek Rating of a case shall consist of the combined S &
P factors, stated as Sn/Pn, e.g. S3/P5; except that cases with an S
factor of 1 shall simply be stated as S1.
Examples using recent or famous cases:
S1 - Wickenburg, AZ, July 10 (explanation:Mars)
S5/P1 - Billy Meier
S2/P5 - X-shaped UFO, Petaluma, CA May 28
S4/P5 - Brazilian "Ping Pong Balls"
S5/P4 - Betty & Barney Hill
S4/P4 - Lubbock Lights
S5/P5 - MedEvac Helicopter ("Coyne" Case)
S3/P2 - Delphos
S4/P2 - Anything published in SAUCER SMEAR
I believe this rating system will be a useful tool to investigators who
wish to narrow their focus to the most promising cases. It is not my
intention that any one group "stake a claim" to this system; rather,
I'd like to see several groups or investigators rate cases according to
their own view, merely using this system as a standard.
The rating of a particular case may, indeed perhaps should, change from time to
time as new evidence is gathered.
Your comments are welcome.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank