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.
“Nevers”43 pages
135 area of forecasting the social characteristics of an advanced extrater- restrial civilization. Philosophers, social scientists, and others usually undertake studies of rather theoretical problems. (See Wooldridge (1968) and Minas and Ackoff (1964). If only a quantitative index or indices of social advancement could be developed that, say, would dif- ferentiate us from the Romans in our interpersonal and intersociety relationships (for example, tendencies toward fewer crimes of vio- lence, fewer wars, etc.), then we might be better equipped to make rational extrapolations from our own to an advanced society. In fact, such as index, if it could be developed might even be beneficial in guid- ing our existing earth-based society. (7) Serendipity.—In addition to the value of anomalistic phe- nomena studies to these specific scientific disciplines, there is always serendipity. Any scientific study of this nature is potentially capable of giving substantial dividends in terms of "spin-off." For example: in improved techniques in radar and optical sensor design and control; in giving a reliable quantitative credibility level to witness'statements in court; or in deciphering and/or analyzing anomalistic radio signals from interstellar space. PART 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For the past 16 years I have seriously (albeit sporadically) fol- lowed the analyses of "UFO" or "flying saucer" reports—both scien- tific and quasi-scientific. It is my conclusion that there is only so much quantitative data that we can squeeze out of vast amounts of data on anomalistic observational phenomena that has been collected to date. I believe that we will simply frustrate ourselves by endless argu- ments over past, incomplete data scenarios; what we need is more sophisticated analyses of fresh anomalistic observational data. We must come up with more than just a rehash of old data. I emphasize thatit is very unlikely that existing optical and radar monitoring systems would collect the type of quantitative data that is required to identify and study the phenomena. Moreover, we current- ly have no quantitative basis upon which to evaluate and rank (ac- cording to credibility) the myriad of eyewitness reports. Thus con- tinuing to "massage' past anomalistic events would seem to be a waste of our scientific resources. In balance,then,I conclude that: (1) We have not now, nor have we been in the past, able to achieve a complete—or even partially complete—surveillance of space in the vicinity of the earth, comprehensive enough to betray the presence of, or provide quantitative information on, anomalistic phenomena. (2) Hard data on anomalistic observational phenomena do, in fact exist, but they are of poor duality, because of the inadequacies of equipment employed in obtaining them. (3) Soft data on anomalistic phenomena also exist, but we have no quantitative procedure to evaluate their credibility and develop clear-cut conclusions on the characteristics of the anomalistic phe- nomena. (4) It follows from the scientific method that an experiment or experiments should be devised, and closely related study programs be initiated expressly to define the anomalistic data better.
Hearing transcript, from the govinfo collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 256 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.