Baker report, 1968 congressional hearings

Consequently, this point is important, that despite our many sensing and monitoring systems, the fact that they don't
repeatedly turn up
[[191]]
what appear to be similar to UFO's, whatever we define those to be, is not quite as conclusive as it might seem.
The second comment I would make concerns Dr. Baker's remark that we should move ahead to instrumental techniques
and perhaps lessen attention on the older data.
I too agree that we have much need to replace what police officers and pilots saw with good hard instrumental data, the
sooner the better, but there are many fields in which once you get instrumental data, say seismology, and being to learn
about the phenomenon you are studying, seismology, astronomy, meteorology, once you understand these things you do go
back to exploit the knowledge that is implicit in older data. Seismologists do study old earthquake records to improve the
seismicity data available. Ecologists do look at old shifts in plant and animal patterns. Astronomers do look at old eclipse
information, because once you begin to understand a problem, you can then sort out much better the important material.
I would not want to see excluded entirely -- in fact, I think it would be folly to exclude observations that go back 20 years,
and a part of the problem we have not talked about today, still earlier observations.
Dr. Baker. Yes, I concur in that.
My message there was that if we preoccupy ourselves with continually going over past history, it is going to be frustrating.
I think we can always use past history in retrospect. In order to go back, as you say, to look at the data and to put it in the
proper perspective, when we learn more about the phenomena. So I agree.
Mr. Roush. Is there any other aspect of previous presentations that any of you would like to question?
Dr. Baker. I have a question of Dr. Harder about the Ubatuba magnesium.
Was this magnesium terrestrial? In other words, it is granted that Ubatubas couldn't produce it, but could the magnesium
have been produced terrestrially, and if so, in what connection would we produce and employ such magnesium here on
earth?
Dr. Harder. Well, such pure magnesium is indeed produced terrestrially in connection with Grignard reagents, and
produced by the Dow Chemical Co., where magnesium is produced in greater purity actually than this.
At the time in 1957, the Brazilians did not have a sample of magnesium from the U.S. Bureau of Standards that was as pure
as this Ubatuba magnesium with which to compare it. I might enlarge upon the data which was produced, or which was
gotten at the request of Dr. Craig, that of the impurities found by the Colorado group, the principal one was zinc strontium
with barium being a runner-up. these are very curious kinds of alloys from any terrestrial point of view.
No detected aluminum, and only three parts per million copper, and those are the most likely alloying elements from the
terrestrial point of view.
Dr. Baker. Would you say that the sample was partially terrestrialized, and it might be the remnants of an ultrapure
nonterrestrial alloy, or did it appear these particular impurities were in the sample from the beginning?
[[192]]
Dr. Harder. This was done by a neutralization [sic] analysis on a very tiny slicer [sic]. It would be hard to say to what
extent over the intervening 9 years there might be some terrestrialization, but certainly it would not have taken out
aluminum or copper. It might have added zinc or barium, although that seems somewhat unlikely.