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.

106
I think we have precisely the same risk of misinterpretation as hos-
tile aircraft, with again the same resulting recommendation.
I think we have again the same possible great value from under-
standing the phenomenon in order to advance our knowledge.
The third major hypothesis, explanation, which I cited above, is
that even the most solid and plausible cases reported are results of
mass hysteria and hysterical contagion.I simply note that if this is the
case,I regard it as prima facie evidence that we badly need to improve
our understanding of mass hysteria,of the process of belief formation,
of the means by which we might control the kinds of anxiety that
produce this problem.
In this situation there is still the dangerous risk of panic, even if
there is no physical phenomenon underlying these reports. There is
still the risk of misinterpretation of hos6le aircraft, and I would sub-
mit that there is still the great potential benefit from studying it
thoroughly and scientifically,in this case the gain being a gain in socio-
logical and psychological knowledge, which would be of obvious im-
portance if all of this is caused simply by mass hysteria.
I have a few conclusions and recommendations which I have written
out. I will try to tie these to what others have said as I go along.
My first conclusion would be that no matter what explanation you
accept, we have here a rare opportunity for gaining some useful knowl-
edge by a thorough detached study of UFO reports, and a systematic
gathering of new information, hopefully with good instrumentation,
and good, well-trained interviewing teams.
My second conclusion would be that hysteria and contagion of be-
lief can account for some of the reports, but there is strong evidence
that there is some physical phenomena underlying a portion of the
reports.
Third,I would conclude that because of the lack of trustworthy in-
formation the systems of conflicting beliefs has been built up to ac-
count for a very ambiguous set of circumstances. Each of these posi-
tions is sometimes defended beyond the point of rationality.
Fourth, I would repeat my earlier statement as a conclusion, that
whether or not there is a physical phenomenon underlying a portion
of the reports, we clearly have a social psychological problem of sub-
duing these irrational systems of belief, defense of beliefs of lowering
the anxiety about these reports, and of reducing the ambiguity about
their nature.
The recommendations that I had written out were two—excuse me,
were three, and overlap considerably with the comments of my col-
leagues. I would say that the most important matter is to promote the
fullest possible free circulation of all the available information about
this phenomena. This should help reduce risks of panic and other
dangerous irrational actions. It should help to weaken these systems of
belief, the irrational elements in them. Here I would say indifference,
or disinterest on the part of national leaders can retard our learning
about this phenomenon,and open interest and encouragement can help.
I believe you are performing a fine service in having this kind of
open inquiry. This whole matter badly needs to be treated as something
deserving serious study.
The second recommendation I have to make concerns some general
lines of research that would seem to me called for. One of these seems