Symposium on unidentified flying objects: hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, second session, July 29, 1968.

102
without
tremendous
anxiety
or
concern,
an
object
hovering,
moving
about,
going through
gyrations.
Twice
it
approached
their police
car.
When
they
tried
to
approach
it,
it
would
retreat.
They
radioed in
and
requested
that
this
object
be
confirmed
on
radar,
and
it
was
confirmed
by
local
radar
stations
at
approximately
the
same
location.
Ultimately,
after
a
couple
of
hours
of
observation,
they
watched
this
object
move
away,
join
a
second
similar
object,
and
then
disappear.
They
then
went
to
the
sheriff's
office,
where
two
deputies
were
present
who
had
also
seen
this
phenomenon,
and
gave
similar
descriptions.
Now
applying
the
criteria
to
a
case
such
as
this,
in
most
respects
it
is
very
convincing.
These
are
police
officers
of
good
reputation.
Their
report
was
prompt,
thorough,
careful,
and
in
writing—and
I
have
read the report
in
full.
There
is
much
detail
in
it
of
a
sort
that could
be
cross-checked
with
the other
witnesses
from
the
sheriff's
office.
There
are
no
apparent
motives for
prevarication
or
distortion.
It
was a
long
period
of
observation.
I
cannot
establish
very
clearly
what
prior
interest
or
information
these witnesses
had, but
I
find
no
indication
that
they
had
any.
There
was
confirmation
of
the
observation
from more
than one
medium
of
observation—both
visual
and
radar.
This
is
the
kind of
case
that
leads
me
to
regard the hypothesis
of
hysterical
contagion
as being
quite
inadequate to account for
theseobservations.
It
is
not
a
lone case; there are
many
others.
There were
trained
ground
observers
near
White
Plains,
N.Y.,
in1954,
who
observed
an
object
which
they
described
as
having
the ap-
parent
size
of
the
moon,
while simultaneously
they
saw
the
moon,
which
was
not
full
that
night.
They
watched
this
for
20
or
30
minutes,
then
it
moved
away
to
the
southeast.
Two
radar
stations established
fixes
confirming the
visually re-
ported
location.
Jets
were
scrambled
from two
bases to
intercept.
The
ground
observers
were
able to
see
the
jet
trails
approaching.
Both
the
pilots
of
the
jets
and
the
ground
observers
report that as the
jets
approached,
this
object
changed
color
and
moved
up
very
rapidly
and
disappeared,
and
at that point
radar
contact
was
also
lost.
Once
again
this
is
the
kind of
report that
seems
to
me
to
fit
the
customary
criteria
of
credibility
to
a
very
considerable degree.
It
is
very
difficult
to claim that
these
multiple observers, trained
for the
type of
observation
they were making,
confirmed independently
through
more
than one
channel,
were
victims
of
hysterical
contagion.
Dr. McDonald,
I
believe,
referred
briefly
to
the Levelland,
Tex.
cases in 1958,
of
interference
with automobile
ignition,
in
which
there
were
10
separate sightings
in that
one
evening, apparently with
no
opportunity for the
citizens
involved
either
to read the
news, hear the
news
of
this,
nor
to talk
with one
another.
They
uniformly
reported
the
same
general shape.
They
uniformily
reported—a
great
many
of
them
reported also interference
with automobiles
ignition
and
head-
lights.
This was an
effect
which
at that time had not been observed
and
publicized
a
great deal.
It subsequently has become
publicized.
Now, how do
these cases
differ
from
the well-known, documented
cases
of mass
hysteria
and
hysterical
contagion?
In
general those
episodes
have not
persisted
as long as the active interest
in unidentified
flying objects.
It
lasted
a week or a few weeks, and
it
had not been too
difficult
to find reasonably acceptable explanations.