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.

109
organized into social groups in which members support one another's beliefs.
Hence a particular belief, such as the belief that there is no new physical phe-
nomenon underlying UFO reports, is intricately tied in with two systems—a
system of related beliefs by the same person, and a social system of people who
share similar beliefs. Many social psychologists have analyzed and documented
this kind of phenomenon (e.g., Festinger, 1957; Simmons, 1964; Smith, Bruner,
and White, 1956).
In circumstances such as those described, the ambiguous situation is often
associated with widespread anxiety, and the belief systems which arise char-
acteristically contain elements of hysteria which may increase the likelihood
of panic or other irrational action (see Smelser, 1963). New beliefs which are
improvised to reduce the ambiguity often are assimilated into preexisting belief
systems, such as the beliefs of religious cults, so that, in effect, the ambiguous
situation is used to manufacture support for preexisting beliefs. Once a situation
of competing belief systems is established, probably the only way to modify it
very much is by attacking the conditions which brought it about—that is, the
lack of authoritative, trusted information.
My second major question, stated above, was: "Is the mass hysteria hy-
pothesis a plausible one, and can it account adequately for the known facts?"
First, let me reiterate the facts which we are trying to explain: numerous
reliable reports, and recurrent features in these reports. When a large number
of people report observations that share many details of appearance and be-
havior, one of three things must be the case: either they are observing the same
phenomenon, or they have been exposed to the same sources of information which
have influenced them to expect to see certain things, or they have been in mutual
contact and influenced one another in some fashion. If the mass hysteria hypoth-
esis is to be held plausible, we need to show that separate people reporting the
same details have been in touch with each other or with some common source
of information. The independence of the separate observers becomes a crucial
question.
In determining the plausibility of this hypothesis, a second major concern
is the credibility of testimony. Much of our legal system is based upon the assump-
tion that we can, under appropriate conditions, accept human testimony as factual.
Social psychologists are certainly not alone in having developed criteria for
assessing the credibility of testimony; attorneys are thoroughly familiar with
such criteria. In assessing testimony we customarily consider such questions
about the witness as his reputation in his community, whether he has any apparent
motive for prevarication or distortion, whether he has previous familiarity with
the things reported. In addition we consider internal characteristics of his
report, such as the recency and duration of the events reported, the number
and type of specific observable details reported as apart from reports that are
primarily interpretations, the inclusion of details that are independently varifi-
able (such as physical effects). Also testimony is, of course, more credible if
there are multiple witnesses, especially ones who are completely independent of
one another; if there have been different means of observation (e.g., both visual
and auditory, or unaided observation and observation through instruments) ;
and if the testimony is gathered by qualified, careful interviewers.
In my judgment there are many reports of UFOs that meet the above criteria
quite well—better, indeed, than many court cases which a judge and jury
accept. In some of these cases, no familiar explanation can be found that fits the
evidence. I shall digress briefly to describe a few cases.
Consider the case of two police officers near Red Bluff, California, on August
13, 1960. They saw a large object descending and at first thought it was an air-
liner about to crash. They jumped from their patrol car and noticed that the
object made no discernible noise. They watched it descend to an estimated 100 or
200 feet, then reverse itself at high speed, and finally •stop and hover at an
estimated 500 feet. They described details of shape, color, and movement. They
radioed the sheriff's office to contact a local radar base and were informed that
the radar base reported an unidentified radar return at the same location as their
visual observation. They reported details of the object's behavior and their own.
They tried to approach the object and it retreated; when they remained stationary,
the object approached their car. They reported that the object retreated when
they turned on the patrol car's red light. After prolonged observation the object
began to move away, and they followed slowly. They saw it join another similar
object and finally disappear over the horizon. Altogether they watched the object
for about two hours and fifteen minutes. Their report was prompt, thorough and
97-818-68 8