Unidentified flying objects: hearing before the Committee on Armed Forces of the House of Representatives, Eighty-ninth Congress, second session, April 5, 1966 ...

6007
many
of us
firmly
believed
that,
like
some
fad
or
craze,
it
would
subside in
a
matter
of months.
Yet
in
the
last
5
years,
more
reports
were
submitted to the
Air
Force than
in
the
first
5
years.
Despite the
seeming
inanity
of
the
subject,
I
felt
that
I
would
be
derelict
in
my
scientific
responsibility
to
the
Air
Force
if
I
did
not
point
out
that the
whole
UFO
phenomenon might
have
aspects
to
it
worthy
of
scientific
attention.
What
we
have
here
is
a
signal-to-noise
ratio
problem: There
is
indeed
a
fantastic
amount
of
noise,
represented
by
the
many
misidentifications
of
familiar
objects
seen
under
unusual
or
surprising
circumstances—balloons,
birds,
satellites
'
meteors,
air-
craft,
stars—yet,
in
all scientific
honesty,
one
is
led
to ask
whether
there
might
not
indeed
be
a
signal
somewhere
in
the
noise.
As
a
scientist,
I
must
be
mindful
of
the
lessons
of
the
past;
all
too
often
it
has
happened
that matters
of
great value to
science
were
over-
looked
because
the
new
phenomenon
simply
did
not
fit
the
accepted
scientific
outlook
of
the time.
Thus,
the
evidence
of
fossiles
for
biologi-
cal
evolution
was
overlooked;
X-rays
were
overlooked,
meteorites
were
overlooked
as astronomers
steadfastly
refused
to
accept
stories
of
stones
which
fell
from
the sky.
Therefore,
I
have
set
aside
for
further
study
some 20
particularly
well-reported
UFO
cases
which,
despite
the
character,
technical
com-
petence
and number
of
the
witnesses,
I
have
not
been
able
to
explain.
I
have done
this
to
illustrate
that
neither
I
nor
the
Air
Force
hide
the
fact there are
unexplained
reports,
and
to
illustrate
also
that the
Air
Force
does
not
maintain, contrary to
some
public
opinion,
that
re-
porters
of
UFO's
are lacking in
intelligence
or
are
objects
fit
only for
ridicule.
For
of
these reports,
10
are
from
scientists
and
highly
trained
indi-
viduals,
5
are
from members
of
the
Armed
Forces
and members
of
the
police
force,
and
5
are
reports
made
by
reliable
American
civilians.
In
my
view, the
reliability
of
the
observers
was
above
average
in
all
20
cases.
The
recent cases
in
Michigan have not
been
included in
this
particular
collection
since
I
feel
that
they
are subject
to
simple,
albeit
somewhat
unusual,
explanation.
I
cannot prove
beyond doubt
that
this
is
the
case,
but
these
two
now
famous
reports
illustrate
the
method
the
Air Force has
used with
great
success in finding
logical
explanations for the great majority
of
the
reports.
We
have
used as
a working
hypothesis,
when
first
confronted with
a
report,
that
a
conventional explanation
existed, either
as
a
misiden-
tification
or
an
otherwise
well-known
object
or
phenomenon,
a
hallu-
cination,
or
a
hoax. This has been
a
very
successful
and
productivehypothetsis.
One
must
be aware, however,
that complete adherence
to
one
hypothesis
may
turn out to be
a
roadblock in the pursuit
of
research endeavors.
As
the saying
goes,
"If one
digs too
intently
for
coal
he
is
apt
to
miss diamonds."
Scientists
should never be
guilty
of poverty ofhypotheses.
And
in dealing with the
*truly
puzzling
cases,
we
have
tended
either
to say
that, if
an
investigation
had
been pursued long
enough, the
misidentified object
would have been recognized, or that
the sighting
had no
validity to begin with.
The
UFO
public,
on
the other hand,
is
equally prone to poverty of
hypotheses: Either
UFO's mean
utter bilge
and
nonsense, or they