Documents / Document

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

Princeton (kirkmcd archive) · 1968-07-29 · 55 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is the prepared statement James E. McDonald, a senior physicist at the University of Arizona's Institute of Atmospheric Physics, submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics for its July 29, 1968 Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects. He draws on hundreds of witness interviews and weighs eight hypotheses. His conclusion is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial surveillance devices. He argues that scientists have wrongly neglected the subject and urges much more scientific investigation and further Congressional hearings.

with such accelerations that they defy understanding in terms of present technology. It is to be understood that I
speak here only of reports from what I regard as credible observers.
c) Close-range nighttime sightings of glowing, hovering objects, often with blinking or pulsating discrete
lights.
In these instances, distinct shape is not seen, evidently in many cases because of the brilliance of the lights. Less
significant than those of the preceding category, these nonetheless cannot be accounted for in terms of any known
vehicles. Frequently they are reported hovering over vehicles on the ground or following them. Sometimes they are
reported hovering over structures, factories, power installations, and the like. Soundlessness is typical. Estimated
sizes vary widely, over a range that I do not believe can be accounted for simply in terms of the known unreliability
of distance and size estimates when one views an unknown object.
d) Radar-tracked objects, sometimes seen visually simultaneously by observers on the ground or in the air.
In many of these cases, the clues to the non-conventional nature of the radar target is high speed (estimated at
thousands of miles per hour in certain instances); in others, it is alternate motion and hovering; in still others, it has
been the unconventional vertical motions that make the radar observations significant. Clearly, most important are
those instances in which there was close agreement between the visual and radar unknown. There are far more such
cases than either scientists or public would guess.
Those four categories do not exhaust the list by any means. But they constitute four commonly encountered
categories that are of interest here. Examples will be found below.
7. Commonly encountered questions:
As Mark Twain said, "Faith is a great thing, but it's doubt that gets you an education."
There are many questions that one encounters again and again from persons who have done no personal case-
checking and who maintain a healthy skepticism about UFOs. Why don't pilots report these things if they are
buzzing around in our skies? Why aren't they tracked on radar? Why don't our satellite and astronomical tracking
systems get photos of UFOs? Why are they always seen in out-of-the-way rural areas but never over large cities?
Why don't large groups of people ever simultaneously see UFOs, instead of lone individuals? Why don't
astronomers see them? Shouldn't UFOs occasionally crash and leave clear-cut physical evidence of their reality? Or
shouldn't they at least leave some residual physical evidence in those alleged instances where the objects have
landed? Shouldn't they affect radios and produce other electromagnetic effects at times? If UFOs are a product of
some high civilization, wouldn't one expect something of the nature of inquisitive behavior, since innate curiosity
must be a common denominator of anything we would call "intelligence"? Why haven't they contacted us if they're
from somewhere else in the universe and have been here for at least two decades? Is there any evidence of hostility
or hazard? Are UFOs seen only in this country? Why didn't we see them before 1947, if they come from remote
sources? And so on.
In the following sections, I shall show how some of these questions do have quite satisfactory answers, and how
some of them still defy adequate rebuttal. I shall use mostly cases that I have personally investigated, but, in a few
instances (clearly indicated), I shall draw upon cases which I have not directly checked but for which I regard the
case-credentials as very strong.
8. Useful source materials on UFOs:
Hoping that Committee staff personnel will be pursuing these matters further, I remark next on some of the more
significant items in the UFO literature. All of these have been helpful in my own studies.

Cases discussed

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 55 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.