Baker report, 1968 congressional hearings

(5) Psychiatry and psychology. -- Since bizarre events have been reported, the study of eyewitness credibility, under
stressful circumstances of visual input, if possible. As I will recommend later: if a competent, mobile task force of
professionals could be sent into action as soon as anomalistic events are detected, then reliable evaluation of eyewitness
reports (soft data) in relation to the actual hard data obtained, could be accomplished. Even if the event was only a
spectacular fireball, or marsh gas, the psychiatric/medical examination of eyewitnesses would still be more informative.
(6) Social science. -- Although not classified as a physical science, there appears to be a challenge here for the social
sciences. It has been my contention throughout this report that it is not a prerequisite to the study of anomalistic
observational phenomena to suppose that they result from extraterrestrial intelligence.
Nevertheless, it still is an open possibility in my mind. It seems reasonable, therefore, to undertake a few contingency
planning studies. In order to extract valuable information from an advanced society, it would seem useful to forecast the
approximate characteristics of such a superior intelligence—or, if not necessarily superior, an intelligence displayed by an
industrial, exploratory culture of substantially greater antiquity. There exist dozens of treatises on technological
forecasting; one can key estimates of technological advancement to speed of travel, production of energy, productivity,
ubiquity of communications, etc. There have been many debates on the technical capabilities or limits on the capabilities of
advanced extraterrestrial societies (for example, see Markowitz (1967) and Rosa, et al. (1967). Often intermixed with these
technological capabilities arguments, however, are very dubious comments concerning the psychological motivations,
behavioral patterns, and unbased projections of the social motivations of an advanced society. Hypothetical questions are
often raised such as, "*** if there are flying saucers around, why don't they contact us directly? *** I would if I were
investigating another civilization." Such comments are made on extremely thin ice, for, to my knowledge, no concerted
study has been carried out in the
[[134]]
area of forecasting the social characteristics of an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Philosophers, social scientists, and
others usually undertake studies of rather theoretical problems. (See Wooldridge (1968) and Minas and Ackoff (1964). If
only a quantitative index or indices of social advancement could be developed that, say, would differentiate us from the
Romans in our interpersonal and intersociety relationships (for example, tendencies toward fewer crimes of violence, fewer
wars, etc.), then we might be better equipped to make rational extrapolations from our own to an advanced society. In fact,
such as index, if it could be developed might even be beneficial in guiding our existing earth-based society.
(7) Serendipity. -- In addition to the value of anomalistic phenomena studies to these specific scientific disciplines, there is
always serendipity. Any scientific study of this nature is potentially capable of giving substantial dividends in terms of
"spin-off." For example: in improved techniques in radar and optical sensor design and control; in giving a reliable
quantitative credibility level to witness' statements in court; or in deciphering and/or analyzing anomalistic radio signals
from interstellar space.
PART 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the past 16 years I have seriously (albeit sporadically) followed the analyses of "UFO" or "flying saucer" reports --
both scientific and quasi-scientific. It is my conclusion that there is only so much quantitative data that we can squeeze out
of vast amounts of data on anomalistic observational phenomena that has been collected to date. I believe that we will
simply frustrate ourselves by endless arguments over past, incomplete data scenarios; what we need is more sophisticated
analyses of fresh anomalistic observational data. We must come up with more than just a rehash of old data.
I emphasize that it is very unlikely that existing optical and radar monitoring systems would collect the type of quantitative
data that is required to identify and study the phenomena. Moreover, we currently have no quantitative basis upon which to
evaluate and rank (according to credibility) the myriad of eyewitness reports. Thus continuing to "massage" past
anomalistic events would seem to be a waste of our scientific resources. In balance, then, I conclude that:
(1) We have not now, nor have we been in the past, able to achieve a complete -- or even partially complete -- surveillance
of space in the vicinity of the earth, comprehensive enough to betray the presence of, or provide quantitative information
on, anomalistic phenomena.
(2) Hard data on anomalistic observational phenomena do, in fact exist, but they are of poor quality, because of the
inadequacies of equipment employed in obtaining them.