James E. McDonald statement, Symposium on UFOs, House Committee on Science and Astronautics

Discussion:
I have not seen the photos alleged to have been taken in this incident, I have only interviewed the two who say they
took them and a third person who states that he inspected the prints in company with the two Askania operators and
darkroom personnel. I sent all of the relevant information on this case to the University of Colorado UFO project,
but no checks were made as a result of that, unless done very recently. It would be rather interesting to see the prints.
4. Photographic sky-survey cameras might be expected to get photos of UFOs from time to time. However, one
finds that, in many sky-photography programs in astronomy, tracks that do not obviously conform to what is being
sought, say meteor-tracks, are typically ignored as probable aircraft. Indeed, a very general pattern in all kinds of
monitoring programs operates to bias the system against seeing anything but what it was built to see. Nunn-Baker
satellite cameras are only operated when specific satellites are computed to be due overhead, and then the long axis
of the field is aligned with the computed trajectory. Anything that crosses the field and leaves a record on the film
with an orientation markedly different from the predicted trajectory is typically disregarded. Photographic, radar,
and visual observing programs have a large degree of selectivity intentionally built into them in order not to be
deluged with unwanted "signals". Hence one must be rather careful in suggesting that our many tracking systems
surely ought to detect UFOs. There's much evidence to suggest that, if they did, the signal would be ignored as part
of a systematic rejection of unwanted data. Even in the practices of the GOC (Ground Observer Corps), some units
received instructions to report nothing but unidentified aircraft. (But for examples of some UFOs that did get into
the GOC net, see Hall, Ref. 10.)
Although I am aware of a few photos allegedly showing UFOs, for which I have no reason at present to doubt the
authenticity (for example a series of snapshots taken by a brother and sister near Melbourne, Australia, showing a
somewhat indistinct disc in various positions), I must emphasize that the total sample is tiny. Compared with that, I
have seen dozens of alleged UFO photos which I regard as of dubious origin. Other UFO photos of which I am
aware are still in process of being checked in one way or another.
To summarize, I do have the impression that we ought to have more valid UFO photos than the small number of
which I am aware.
IF UFOs ARE REAL, SHOULDN'T THEY PRODUCE SOME REAL
PHYSICAL EFFECTS?
Again, the answer is that they do. There are rather well-authenticated cases spanning a wide variety of "physical
effects." Car-stopping cases are one important class. UFOs have repeatedly been associated with ignition failures
and light-failures of cars and trucks which came near UFOs or near which the UFOs moved. I would estimate that
one could assemble a list of four or five dozen such instances from various parts of the world. Interference with
radios and TV receptions have been reported many times in connection with UFO sightings. There are instances
where UFOs have been reported as landing, and after departure, holes in the ground, or depressions in sod or
disturbed vegetation patterns have been described. In many such instances, the evident reliability of the witnesses is
high, the likelihood of hoax or artifice small. A limited number of instances of residues left behind are on record, but
these are not backed up by meaningful laboratory analyses, unfortunately.
A physical effect that does not typically occur under conditions where the description of events might seem to call
for it, relates to sonic booms. Although there are on record a few cases where fast-moving UFOs were accompanied
by explosive sounds that might be associated with sonic booms, there are far more instances in which the reported
velocity corresponded to supersonic speeds, yet no booms were reported. A small fraction of these can be
rationalized by noting that the reporting witnesses were located back within the "Mach cone" of the departing UFO;
but this will not suffice to explain away the difficulty. One feels that if UFOs are solid objects, capable of leaving
depressions in soil or railroad ties when they land, and if they can dash out of sight in a few seconds (as has been
repeatedly asserted by credible witnesses), they should produce sonic booms. This remains inexplicable; one can
only lamely speculate that perhaps there are ways of eliminating sonic booms that we have not yet discovered;
perhaps the answer involves some entirely different consideration.