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.

127
Several
appendixes
accompany
this
report.
The
first
two
are in
response to
Congressman
Roush's
invitational
letter
of July
10,
1968,
and
consist
of
my
biographical sketch
and a
listing
of
my
bibliography,
respectively.
The
third
appendix
relates
directly
to
my
specific
recommendations,
and
was
included
with
the
kind
permission
of
Dr.Sydney Walker
III.
The
fourth
appendix
presents three
reprints
of
articles
(Baker
(1968a)
and
(1968b)
and Walker
(1968)
)
that
are
pertinent
to
the
subject
matter
of
this report.
PART
I.
ANALYSES
OF ANOMALISTIC
OBSERVATIONAL
PHENOMENAUTAH
AND
MONTANA
FILMS
My
initial
contact
with
anomalistic observational
phenomena—
AOP—came
in
1954
when
I
was a
consultant to
Douglas
Aircraft
Co.
in
Santa Monica,
Calif.,
serving
as
special
assistant
to
Dr.
W.
B.
Klemperer,
director
of Douglas'
research
staff.
The
data
consisted
of
two
short
film
clips:
one
taken
in
Montana—termed by
us
as
the
Mon-
tana
film—and
one
taken in
Utah—called
by
us
the
Utah
film.
These
films
were
provided
to
us
by
the
Air
Technical
Intelligence
Center—
ATIC,
now
the
Foreign Technology
Division—FDT—at
Wright
-
Patterson
Air
Force Base; 35
-millimeter prints
were
furnished
by
Green
-Rouse
Productions
of
Samuel Goldwyn
Studios.
Both
films
had
been taken
by
apparently
reliable
and
unbiased
men
using
amateur movie cameras and,
in
each
case,
there
was
a
credible,
substantiating
witness
present.
The
films exhibited
the
motion of
rather
fuzzy white
dots,
but
the
Montana
film
was
remarkable
in that
foreground
was
visible
on
most
of
the frames.
Preliminary
analysis
excluded
most
natural
phenomena.
More
de-
tailed
study
indicated
that the only
remaining
natural
phenomenon
candidate for the
Utah
film
was
birds
in
flight,
and
for the
Montana
film
it
was
airplane fuselage
reflections
of
the sun.
After about
18
months
of
rather
detailed,
albeit
not
continuous,
study using
variousfilm
-measuring equipments
at
Douglas
and
at
UCLA,
as
well
as
anal-ysis
of
a
photogrammetric
experiment,
it
appeared that
neither
of
these
hypothesized natural
phenomena
explanations
had
merit,
and
a
report
was
published
by
me
(Baker
(1956)
)
and
forwarded
to
Brig.
Gen. Harold
E.
Watson, commander,
ATIC.
Since the
description
ofthe circumstances
of the
filmings
and
the analyses
of
the data pro-
vided
on
the
films
is
rather lengthy,
and have
since
been published
in the
open
literature,
1
it
does not seem
unreasonable to repeat the
analyses here.
FLORIDA
FILM
During
the course
of
this
study
we
also
had
the opportunity to
view
some gun
-camera photographs taken over Florida. Unfortunately,
we
could not
retain this film,
and
did not have time
available to
accom-
plish
a
comprehensive
analysis.
Like
the
Montana and Utah
films, this
film also exhibited
only white-dot
images; however,
since
a foreground
was
present,
a competent study could have been
carried out.
Dr.Klemperer and
I
agreed
on
the preliminary conclusion—not supported
by
detailed
analyses—that, again,
no
natural
phenomenon was a
likely
source for the images.
1
For
the
Utah
film, see
Baker and Makemson (1967): for the Montana
film, see
Baker
(1968a). This
latter reference
is
included in app.
4
to this paper.