Baker report, 1968 congressional hearings

That such observer evaluations have not been previously proposed is probably because adequate assessment depends on
incorporating the approaches and tools of several medical specialties, rather than one.
Introduction and Rationale
Human testimony to events which have been observed is crucial to science, law, and the national security. Yet the
creditability of such testimony is frequently left either entirely to speculation or, at best, inadequately ascertained.
One need merely to look at the current controversy and confusion surrounding the issue of unidentified flying objects
(UFO's) to appreciate the need for careful observer assessment. Only after observer creditability has been established, can
one sort out the "soft data" of UFO reports and scrutinize them for scientific usefulness [1].
One recourse, or course, is to deal only with "hard data" and to simply refuse to deal in any way with eye witness reports,
contending that such observations are unlikely because they are too bizarre or have previously been reported only by
"crazy people." This kind of reaction reflects scientific closed-mindedness. It is apt to be based in prejudice or fear of the
unknown (particularly when that unknown, if taken seriously, would threaten one's safety or survival). Such an attitude is
among those which the scientist who wants to be objective will guard against, in the interest of truth and progress. On the
other hand, the opposite position of complete, unquestioning faith in observer reports is no better.
This author suggests an initial attitude of "benevolent skepticism" because of an acute awareness of the myriad of
individual processes (and maladies) that determine what has been witnessed and how it is described. Further, and more
importantly it is proposed that specific, specialized medical assessment of individual observers is essential to establishing
the integrity of the observer system. Following careful, clinical investigation, much of the human error in observation can
be placed into a perspective which eliminates the "blind faith" in eye-witness testimony and gives the reported data a
confidence proportionate to its value.
Although it is well-known that specific training can serve to increase observational acuity, the basic individual ability is
variable. People differ considerably in terms of genetic endowment, neurologic integrity, and personality characteristics
and dynamics -- all of which account for what they see or say they have seen. By applying selected methods used in
medicine, particularly in neurology, psychiatry, and neuro-ophthalmology, observers can be clinically evaluated for
creditability, both predictive and retrospective. Such an approach offers both quantitative and qualitative assessment of
central nervous system functioning as it would be reflected in observational reporting.
Adequate clinical assessment of an observer must involve cross-disciplinary integration because of the nature of the bodily
processes involved in seeing and reporting an event. In the beginning, the event is perceived. Usually, this is basically a
matter of seeing, although other sensory modalities can also be involved. The initial critical consideration, then, is the state
of the eye (cornea, lens, retina) and its connections with the brain (optic nerve, tract, temporal, parietal, and occipital
lobes). A careful examination of these structures (both directly and indirectly) can establish whether or not it would have
been possible for a particular individual to have perceived what he has reported or whether, on the sole basis of the state of
his input apparatus, his observation was distorted.
Once it has been established that a visual image can be picked up and transmitted, unmolested and unaltered,
1Manuscript submitted February 1968.
22337 Glendon Ave., Los Angela, California 90064.
[[185]]
along normal pathways to the back of the brain to allow for perception, the next question is how the brain codes it. This
involves the ability to deal with detail, to make associations and spatial relationships, and to do other intellectual work, all
of which occurs very rapidly and before the processed material is made available at the tempero-parietal lobe level for
communication or for a reaction of any other kind. A great many pathways and a number of brain areas are operative in
this critical coding step, and a number of problems, both anatomic and physiologic) can affect the process, either subtly or
grossly. The responsibility of the clinician here would be to test cortical integrative ability with the various neurologic