Allan Hendry is a UFO investigator associated with CUFOS (Center for UFO Studies) and best known for authoring a practical handbook on how to investigate and evaluate UFO reports. He is frequently praised for methodological discipline: treating UFO reports as claims requiring structured scrutiny, aggressively eliminating conventional explanations, and maintaining a cautious posture about the small remainder that resists easy classification.

Hendry’s investigative identity emerged in the post–Project Blue Book era, when civilian organizations attempted to professionalize UFO investigation. His work emphasized boots-on-the-ground interviewing, careful reconstruction of observational geometry, and familiarity with astronomical and aviation confusions that repeatedly generate UFO reports.

His ufology career is defined by field investigation and methodological writing rather than media celebrity. Hendry is often invoked as a standard-setter: the kind of investigator whose skepticism is procedural, not ideological, and whose primary loyalty is to accuracy.

In early work, Hendry developed experience through direct case exposure, learning how reporting conditions, memory, and environmental context shape testimony. This period formed the empirical backbone of his later handbook approach.

Hendry gained prominence through his investigator’s guide and through CUFOS association, becoming a reference point for “how to do this properly.” His name is commonly cited in discussions of why many sighting reports collapse under careful analysis—and why a disciplined residue, if any, must be approached cautiously.

In later years, Hendry’s influence persisted through repeated citation of his handbook and the broader investigator culture it helped shape. Even in modern UAP eras dominated by sensor talk and policy debate, his field-method emphasis remains relevant to witness-driven cases.

• Investigation handbook: Provided a durable training text for UFO field investigators.
• Error-source catalog: Documented common misidentifications and how to detect them.
• Method-first posture: Modeled skepticism as an investigative tool rather than a worldview conclusion.

Hendry is often associated with large volumes of investigated reports rather than a single iconic case. His “notability” comes from method: he demonstrated how careful evaluation can resolve many sightings and how only a minority deserve long-term attention.

He generally favored cautious inference: most reports are identifiable, and the remainder should not automatically be treated as extraordinary craft. If a residue exists, it should be approached with improved documentation standards and avoidance of narrative contamination.

Some UFO believers criticized rigorous investigators for “debunking” too aggressively, while hard skeptics criticized any openness to a residual unknown. Hendry’s position is typically defended as methodologically balanced: reduce false positives while keeping the category “unknown” meaningful.

Hendry’s influence is strongest among investigators and serious-case researchers. His work shaped how many groups train new investigators and how they maintain case quality discipline.

He is remembered as one of the key practical-method figures in modern civilian ufology, providing enduring guidance on how to investigate sightings without turning the process into belief-confirmation.