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.

107
to me would be to take the 100 or 200 cases per year that seem to be
reliably reported and reasonably well documented, and to study them
carefully for recurring patterns, with emphasis on the way they react
to their environment,the way they react to light sources,the way they
react to presence of humans and so on.
The second form of research would be, I think to study explicitly
those portions of the problem that do result from mass hysteria, ap-
parently. These need to be studied intensively, quite apart from the
question of the physical phenomena,to improve our understanding of
mass hysteria and panic, and its possibly dangerous consequences.
In doing this I think it is terribly important that particular observa-
tions be studied by the scientists of a variety of disciplines, that the
study of the hysteria hypothesis not be separated from the others. If
it is, there is a tendency to make this hypothesis the garbage can for
otherwise unexplained sightings.
The third type of study that seems to me terribly important, but my
colleagues at the table can speak with more authority than I,is the sys-
tematic gathering of new cases with good scientific instrumentation,
the kind of work in quantitative evidence that would give us much
more to go on.
The third recommendation I had to suggest was that possibly in
addition to a careful scientific investigation and study of this phenom-
enon, it might be fruitful to set up formally an adversary proceeding
modeled after our system of jurisprudence. There is a tendency for us
academics to sit on fences as long as we possibly can, and I think that
if there were several teams of investigators who were assigned the
responsibility much the way a prosecuting attorney or defense attorney
is, assigned the responsibility to make the strongest possible case for
one of the systems of explanation,that this would challenge the others,
and force them to find more solid evidence.
It would try to benefit from some of the valuable features we have
in our system of jurisprudence.
That concludes my presentation, except to comment briefly on how
this relates to the suggestion of my colleagues. I would certainly en-
thusiastically agree with Dr.Hynek's suggestion of a board of inquiry,
or some competent group to study the phenomenon.
I would certainly agree with Dr. McDonald's view that a variety of
approaches would be fruitful, that a single study has many disadvan-
tages. I have taken an interest for a number of years in the problems
of the support of academic institutions by Government, and I think
that we are most likely to proceed to some good knowledge rapidly if
we don't put all our eggs in one basket.
I certainly agree with Dr. Sagan's view that there are these very
intense predisposing emotional factors for each of these beliefs. Some-
how we need to weaken those.
Finally, on the idea of UN cooperation, this had not occurred to me,
but I think it is an excellent idea. If it is possible to establish some
detached international agency that can bring about free, open flow of
information, and some cooperation internationally in investigating
this, it would be helpful.
Thank you,Mr.Roush.
Mr.Rousn.Thank you,Dr.Hall.
Are there questions?