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.
“Harder”17 pages
110written, and contained details which are contained in many other UFO reports. Immediately after losing sight of the object, the officers returned to the sheriff's office and met two deputies who reported the same observation. The officers were men of good reputation, and there is no indication of prior interest in UFOs nor prior knowledge of the kinds of details reported (e.g., the red light beam emitted by the object and radio interference each time it came near). These men have subsequently been contacted by people with scientific training and have con- firmed various details of their report. Another case of interest occurred near White Plains, New York, in late sum- mer, 1954, and was reported by James Beatty, an experienced ground observer corps supervisor in an Air Force Filter Center. At about 9 :50 p.m. an observer team about 20 miles southeast of Poughkeepsie saw an object similar in apparent size to the moon. At the same time they could see the moon, which was not full. They watched the object for about 20 or 30 minutes and then it moved slowly southeastward. According to the report of the supervisor, two radar stations had fixes corresponding to the Visual sighting, and jets were scrambled from two airbases. As the jets approached the object, both the pilots and the ground observers report that the object changed color, moved upward at very high speed, and disappeared. At this point radar contact was lost, too. In the vicinity of Levelland, Texas, on the night of November 2-3, 1957, there were ten separate sightings by several people, including police officers, over a period of approximately 2 1 / 2 hours. The descriptions were similar in several im- Portant details of visual appearance. Several observers independently reported that their cars' engines and headlights quit working when the object was close. This kind of effect has been frequently reported but had not been publicized prior to this group of reports in Levelland. In most instances it is clear that the witnesses around Levelland were going about their usual business and were surprised by the sighting; they had not been alerted to watch for a strange object. These are only three cases out of many (see Hall, 1964, and U.S. Air Force,1968). They are reported only sketchily here, but much more detail is available (see Hall, 1964). I introduce them only to illustrate the kinds of evidence avail- able relevant to the hypothesis of mass hysteria to account for UFO sightings. I am forced to the conclusions that there are many sightings by multiple ob- servers and that many observers are reliable and independently report similar details. In many instances it appears highly unlikely that they could have beenexposed to similar detailed information in advance (e.g., the electrical interfer- ence effects at Levelland). Social psychologists have studied a number of cases of mass hysteria and hys- terical contagion (Cantril, 1940; Johnson, 1945; Kerckhoff & Back, 1968; Medalia & Larsen, 1958). In my judgment the "hard-core reports of UFOs do not resem- ble those documented cases. Those cases were generally short-lived—a day, a week, or at most a few weeks; UFO reports have persisted for decades, at least, despite much ridicule and very little recent press coverage of serious cases. The documented cases of mass hysteria have not involved calm, prolonged observa- tions such as the police officers near Red Bluff, California. The documented cases have had some plausible indication that the people involved have been in touch with one another (Kerckhoff & Back, 1968) or previously exposed in com- mon to the information that they incorporate into a report (e.g., Johnson, 1945; Meidalia & Larsen, 1958). The documented cases have not been worldwide, as are UFO reports. They have not involved phenomena that were simultaneously observed through such different media as direct visual contact and radar contact. In documented cases of mass hysteria I do not know of evidence of people re- luctant to report; in UFO sightings there are numerous such cases. The hypothesis of mass hysteria does not, in my judgment, fit the "hard-core" reports very satis- factorily. The third, and last, of the three major questions which I raised at the begin- ning was: For each of the major explanations, what are the likely consequences, and . what actions or precautions might we take in the public interest? First, let us suppose that there are extraterrestrial devices entering ouratmosphere from the outside. We must then concern ourselves with the possible consequences of contact with technologically advanced civilizations whose values, o r intentions, or motives are totally unknown to us. It appears to me an almostimpossible task to predict the probable effects of contact between our earthly civilization and another civilization without making some clearcut assump- tions about their values and motives. I have not been able to find any rational basis for defending particular assumptions of this kind, and I shall not attempt
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.