Documents / Hearing transcript
This is the printed record of a July 29, 1968 symposium on unidentified flying objects held by the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the U.S. House of Representatives, chaired by Rep. J. Edward Roush. The committee heard statements from six scientists: J. Allen Hynek, James E. McDonald, Carl Sagan, Robert L. Hall, James A. Harder and Robert M. L. Baker. It also printed papers from Donald Menzel, Stanton Friedman, Frank Salisbury and others. Hynek argued that puzzling UFO reports from competent witnesses deserve serious scientific study.
“Nevers”43 pages
5 of the almost total lack of quantitative data—of all those things which are part and parcel of the working environment of the scientist. I was aware that in order to interest scientists, hard-core data were needed, and, while the store of unquestionably puzzling reports from competent witnesses continued to grow the wherewithal to obtain such hard-core data which would, once and for all, clinch the matter, was not forthcoming. Thus my scientific reticence was based on a carefully weighed decision. In attempting analysis of the UFO problem today, I pay particu- lar attention to reports containing large amounts of information which are made by several witnesses, if possible, who as far as I can ascertain, have unimpeachable reputations and are competent. For example, I might cite a detailed report I received from the associate director of one of the Nation's most important scientific laboratories, and his family. Reports such as these are obviously in a different category from re- ports which, say, identify Venus as a hovering spaceship, and thus add to the frustrating confusion. On the other hand, when one or more obviously reliable persons re- ports—as has happened many times—that a brightly illuminated object hovered a few hundred feet above their automobile, and that during the incident their car motor stopped, the headlights dimmed or .went out, and the radio stopped playing, only to have these functions return to normal after the disappearance of the UFO, it is clearly another matter. By'what right can we summarily ignore their testimony and imply that they are deluded or just plain liars? Would we so treat these same people if they were testifying in court, under oath, on more mundane matters? Or, if it is reported, as it has been in many instances over the world by reputable and competent persons, that while they were sitting quietly at home they heard the barnyard animals behaving in a greatly disturbed and atypical manner and when, upon investigating, found not only the animals in a state of panic but reported a noiseless—or sometimes humming—brightly illuminated object hovering nearby, beaming a bright red light down onto the surroundings, then clearly we should pay attention. Something very important may be going on. Now, when in any recognized field of science an outstanding event takes Place, or a new phenomenon is discovered, an account of it is quickly presented at a scientific meeting or is published in a respected appropriate journal. But this is certainly not the case with unusual UFO reports made by competent witnesses. There appears to be a scientific taboo on even the passive tabulation of UFO reports. Clearly no serious work can be undertaken until such taboos are removed. There should be a respectable mechanism for the publication,for instance, of a paper on reported occurrences of electro- magnetic phenomena in UFO encounters. It would be foolhardy to attempt to present such a paper on UFO's to the American Physical Society or to the American Astronomical Society. The paper would be laughed down, if all that could be pre- sented as scientific data were the anecdotal, incomplete, and nonquan- titative reports available. Consequently reports of unexplainable UFO cases are, likely to be found, if at all, in pulp magazines and paper-
Hearing transcript, from the govinfo collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 256 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.