Baker report, 1968 congressional hearings

conclusion. The following type of gulls have been know to fly at times over this locality: California Herring Gull (a
common summer resident), Ring-Billed Gull and-the Fork-Tailed Gull, see Reference (4).
The images are probably not those of balloons as their number is too great and the phenomenon of flaring up to a constant
brightness for several seconds, and then dying out again cannot well be associated with any known balloon observations.
Certain soaring insects -- notably "ballooning spiders" (References (5) and (6)) produce bright-moving points of light. The
author has witnessed such a phenomenon. It is produced by Sun reflections off the streamers of silken threads spun by
many types of spiders. Caught by the wind, these streamers serve as a means of locomotion floating the spider high into the
air. They occasionally have the appearance of vast numbers of silken flakes which fill the air and in some recorded
instances extend over many square miles and to a height of several hundred feet. The reflection, being off silk threads, is
not as bright as diffuse reflection from a flat white board. Thus no flaring of the images could be expected. The author
noted that the sections of the "web" that reflected measured from ¼" to ½" for the largest specimens. Thus the images
might be attributed to ballooning spiders at distances of 50 to 100 feet. However, these web reflections ordinarily show
upon only against a rather dark background and it is doubted if their intensity would be great enough to produce the intense
UFO images against a bright sky.
Besides the above remarks, pertinent to the actual images, several facts can be gleaned from the motion of objects. The
observations are not apt to support the supposition that the objects were conventional aircraft as the maneuvers are too
erratic, the relative accelerations probably ruling out aircraft at distances of over five miles. Several observers familiar with
the appearance of chaff have seen the film and concluded that the persistence of the nontwinkling constellations, their
small quantity, and the reported absence of aircraft overhead makes chaff unlikely. Furthermore, the single object passing
across the field of view would be most difficult to explain on the basis of chaff. These same remarks would apply also to
bits of paper swept up in thermal updrafts.
The relative angular velocity might be compatible with soaring bird speeds at distances of less than one mile, the angular
velocity of the single object could be attributed to a bird within about one thousand feet. There is a tendency to pan with a
moving object -- not against it -- so the velocities in the table probably represent a lower bound. The motion of the objects
is not exactly what one would expect from a flock of soaring birds (not the slightest indication of a decrease in brightness
due to periodic turning with the wind or flapping) and no cumulus clouds are present which might betray the presence of a
strong thermal updraft. On the other hand the single object might represent a single soaring bird which broke away in
search of a new thermal -- quite a common occurrence among gulls -- see Reference (7).
That the air turbulence necessary to account for their movement if they were nearby insects (even the single object's
motion!) is possible, can be concluded from examination of Reference (8). However, if the objects were nearby spider
webs the lack of observed or photographed streamers is unusual. Furthermore, the fact that they were visible from a
moving car for several minutes is hard to reconcile with localized insect activity.
The phenomenon of atmospheric mirages, Reference (9), might conceivably account for the images. Such a hypothesis is
hampered by the clear weather conditions and the persistence and clarity of the images. Also no "shimmering" can be
detected and the motion is steady. Again the object which breaks away would be difficult to explain.
*The dimensions refer to wing spread. The actual exposed white area of a bird is usually less and depends upon the
perspective of the observer. This difference has been roughly accounted for in the data given, however, if the body were
the principal reflector the distance given should be reduced by a factor of 2 or 3.
[[140]]
It has been suggested that spurious optical reflections or light leaks in the camera might be responsible. Examples of such
effects have been examined and found to be quite different from the UFO's (in the Utah Film).
The evidence remains rather contradictory and no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to
completely account for the UFO involved. The possibility of multiple hypotheses, i.e. that the Utah UFO's are the result of
two simultaneous natural phenomena might possibly yield the answer. However, as in the case of the "Montana" analysis,
no definite conclusion (as to a credible natural phenomenon) could be obtained.
REFERENCES