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.
“University of Colorado”13 pages
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?
Hearing transcript, from the govinfo collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 256 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.