Baker report, 1968 congressional hearings

now the Foreign Technology Division -- FTD -- at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; 35-millimeter prints were furnished
by Green-Rouse Productions of Samuel Goldwyn Studios.
Both films had been taken by apparently reliable and unbiased men using amateur movie cameras and, in each case, there
was a credible, substantiating witness present. The films exhibited the motion of rather fuzzy white dots, but the Montana
film was remarkable in that foreground was visible on most of the frames.
Preliminary analysis excluded most natural phenomena. More detailed study indicated that the only remaining natural
phenomenon candidate for the Utah film was birds in flight, and for the Montana film it was airplane fuselage reflections
of the sun. After about 18 months of rather detailed, albeit not continuous, study using various film-measuring equipments
[sic] at Douglas and at UCLA, as well as analysis of a photogrammetric experiment, it appeared that neither of these
hypothesized natural phenomena explanations had merit, and a report was published by me (Baker (1956)) and forwarded
to Brig. Gen. Harold E. Watson, commander, ATIC. Since the description of the circumstances of the filmings and the
analyses of the data provided on the films is rather lengthy, and have since been published in the open literature,1 it does
not seem unreasonable to repeat the analyses here. [NCAS Editor's note: This last sentence appears to be a mis-
transcription; the two analyses were not presented in Dr. Baker's statement.]
FLORIDA FILM
During the course of this study we also had the opportunity to view some gun-camera photographs taken over Florida.
Unfortunately, we could not retain this film, and did not have time available to accomplish a comprehensive analysis. Like
the Montana and Utah films, this film also exhibited only white-dot images; however, since a foreground was present, a
competent study could have been carried out. Dr. Klemperer and I agreed on the preliminary conclusion -- not supported
by detailed analyses -- that, again, no natural phenomenon was a likely source for the images.
1For the Utah film, see Baker and Makemson (1967): for the Montana film, see Baker (1968a). This latter reference is
included in app. 4 to this paper.
[[127]]
VENEZUELA FILM
In June of 1963 I received a movie film clip from a Mr. Richard Hall that had purportedly been taken from an aircraft (DC-
3) near Angel Falls, Venezuela, at about 12:15 p.m. This film clip was 8-millimeter color film, exposed at 16 frames per
second and showed a very bright yellow, slightly pear-shaped object that disappeared in a cloud bank after about 60 or 70
frames. At the time I was the head of the Lockheed Aircraft Co.'s Astrodynamics Research Center. We had developed a
small group of photogrammetrists consisting of Dr. P. M. Merifeld and Mr. James Rammelkamp, and were able to
undertake a study of the film. Initially, Merifeld and Rammelkamp found little of interest on the film. After their
preliminary examination, I expended considerable effort in further analysis. Again, I was only able to draw the conclusion
that the yellow object was no known natural phenomenon; but [before] we could make a quantitative determination of
angular rates and accelerations, and the bounds of distance, linear velocity, and acceleration, the film was lost (except for a
microphotograph exhibiting the object on one frame). There was, however, no question in my mind as to the anomalistic
character of the images.
CALIFORNIA FILM
In January 1964, Mr. Zan Overall showed me three cinetheodolite films which had been taken simultaneously by three
different cameras of a Thor-Able Star launching at Vandenberg AFB (project A4/01019). These films depicted a white
object moving vertically (relative to the film frame) against a clear, blue-sky background. The object was about as bright as
the booster's second-stage exhaust, and passed the booster at about one-third degree per second. Rough estimates of the
direction of the Sun -- based on shadows on early frames -- and the winds aloft -- indicated by the motion of the rocket's
exhaust plume) -- were made. These, together with the brightness of the object and its rate of ascent, seemed to rule out
balloons, airplanes, lens flare, mirages, et cetera. Since one of the cinetheodolites was at a site some distance from the other
two, a parallax determination of the actual distance and speed of the object could be determined rather easily. Because the
films were on loan from the Navy, I was unable to carry out the necessary study and a determination of the precise
character of the phenomenon (natural or anomalistic) could not be made. In 1967, I discussed the matter with Prof. William
K. Hartmann of the University of Arizona, and Prof. Roy Craig of the University of Colorado. At that time, they were
involved in the Colorado UFO Study Group, and indicated that they would attempt to obtain the film for further analysis.