Documents / Hearing transcript

Baker report, 1968 congressional hearings

NICAP · 1968 · 68 pages · text from the file's own layer

This NICAP extract reproduces the statement of Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr., a Computer Sciences Corporation scientist and UCLA engineering faculty member, to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics symposium on unidentified flying objects on July 29, 1968. Baker reviews his analyses of the Utah, Montana, Venezuela and Vandenberg films. He argues that current radar and optical sensors are poorly suited to detecting anomalistic phenomena and urges a well-funded, long-term interdisciplinary research program. The extract ends with panel discussion including Hynek and Hall.

  • p. 3 Committee), British Astronomical Society (Fellow), American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, and Meteoritical Society. His active…
  • p. 57 …T., Office of Aerospace Research Report, AF CRL-65-266, April, 1965. 17. Lamar, D., (in…
Although I am confident that they made a conscientious effort to obtain the films, apparently they were unsuccessful (as of
6 months ago, at least).
PROBABLY NONANOMALISTIC FILMS
In addition to the foregoing film clips -- which seemed to involve data that were the result of anomalistic phenomena -- the
Montana film in my opinion, certainly was anomalistic and all of the other
[[128]]
films except for the California film, most probably were anomalistic -- I have also had the opportunity to view
approximately a half dozen other films, purportedly of "UFO's." The images on these films appeared possibly to be the
result of natural phenomena, such as reflections on airplanes, atmospheric mirages, optical flares, birds, balloons, insects,
satellites, et cetera. For example, a recent (February 1968) set of two films were taken, using professional motion picture
equipment, by a Universal Studio crew on location. Although rather peculiar in appearance, the objects thus photographed
could have conceivably been the result of airplane reflections.
To this date my analyses of anomalistic motion picture data have been rather ungratifying. Although I am convinced that
many of the films indeed demonstrated the presence of anomalistic phenomena, they all have the characteristic or rather ill-
defined blobs of light, and one can actually gain little insight into the real character of the phenomena. For example, linear
distance, speed, and acceleration cannot be determined precisely, nor can size and mass. As I will discuss in a moment, this
situation is not particularly surprising, since, without a special-purpose sensor system expressly designed to obtain
information pertinent to anomalistic observational phenomena, or a general-purpose sensor system operated so as not to
disregard such data, the chance for obtaining high-quality hard data is quite small.
PART 2. INADEQUACIES OF EXISTING SENSOR EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
The capabilities of astronomical optical sensors have been dealt with in a thorough fashion by Page in 1968. The Prairie
Network for Meteor Observations (McCrosky and Posen (1968) ) is a good example of a wide-coverage optical system, but
as is so often the case, and as Page (1968) pointed out. "*** K E. McCrosky of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
informed me that no thorough search (for anomalistic data) has been carried out." Even so, some astronomical photographs
are bound to exhibit anomalistic data. Again quoting from Page (1968), "*** W. T. Powers of Northwestern University
Astronomy Department informed me that 'several' of the Smithsonian-net photographs show anomalous trails." As I have
already pointed out (Baker (1968b) to be found in appendix 4), the majority of our astronomical equipment (e.g.,
conventional photographic telescopes, Baker-Nunn cameras, meteor cameras, Markowitz Dual-Rate Moon Cameras, et
cetera) are special purpose in nature, and would probably not detect the anomalous luminous phenomena reported by the
casual observer if they were indeed present. Their photographic speed, field of view, et cetera, impose severe restrictions
on their ability to collect data on objects other than those they have been specifically designed to detect As already noted in
the quotes from Page (1968), even if such data were collected, the recognition of their uniqueness or anomalous character
by an experimenter is improbable. Examples abound, in the history of celestial mechanics, of minor planets being detected
on old astronomical plates that had been measured for other purposes, and then abandoned.
Our radar and optical space surveillance and tracking systems are even more restrictive and thus, even less likely to provide
information on anomalistic phenomena than are astronomical sensors. The Signal Test Processing Facility (STPF) radar at
Floyd, N.Y. is a high-performance
[[129]]
performance experimental radar having a one-third degree beam width. For lockon and track, an object would have to be
pinpointed to one-sixth degree, and even if the radar did achieve lockon, an erratically moving object could not be followed
even in the STPF radar's monopulse mode of operation. For this reason only satellites having rather well-defined paths
(i.e., ephemerides), which have been precomputed, can be acquired and tracked.
Our three BMEWS radars propagate fans of electromagnetic energy into space. If a ballistic missile or satellite penetrates
two of these fans successively, then it can be identified. Since astrodynamical laws govern the time interval between
detection fan penetrations for "normal" space objects, all other anomalistic "hits" by the radar are usually neglected, and

Cases discussed

About this file

Hearing transcript, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 68 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.