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.

12
1960, in a hearing before Congressman Smart and his committee I
urged "immediate reaction capabilities" in the investigation of UFO
reports. The recommendation was applauded but not funded.
As the scientific climate grew more receptive in giving the UFO
phenomenon a scientific hearing, I published a letter in "Science"
(Oct. 21, 1966), not without difficulty, in which I pointed out the
following general misconceptions regarding UFO's. I should like to
have that letter made a part of the record.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
UFO's MERIT SCIENTIFIC) STUDY
Twenty years after the first public furor over UFO's (called "flying saucers"
then) reports of UFO's continue to accumulate. The Air Force has now decided
to give increased scientific attention to the UFO phenomenon. Thus I feel under
some obligation to report to my scientific colleagues, who could not be expected
to keep up with so seemingly bizarre a field, the gist of my experience in "monitor-
ing the noise level" over the years in my capacity as scientific consultant to the
Air Force. In doing so, I feel somewhat like a traveler to exotic lands and far-
away places, who discharges his obligation to those who stayed at home by telling
them of the strange ways of the natives.
During my long period of association with the reports of strange things in the
sky, I expected that each lull in the receipt of reports signaled the end of the
episode, only to see the activity renew; in just the past two years it has risen to a
new high. Despite the fact that the great majority of reports resulted from mis-
identifications of otherwise familiar things, my own- concern and sense of per-
sonal responsibility have increased and caused me to urge the initiation of a
meaningful scientific investigation of the residue of puzzling UFO cases by
physical and social scientists. I have guardedly raised this suggestion in the
literature 1 and at various official hearings, but with little success. UFO was a
term that called forth buffoonery and caustic banter; this was both a cause and
an effect of the lack of scientific attention. I speak here only of the puzzling
reports; there is little point to concern ourselves with reports that can be easily
traced to balloons, satellities, and meteors. Neither is there any point to take
account of vague oral or written reports which contain few information bits. We
need only be concerned with "hard data," defined here as reports, made by several
responsible witnesses, of sightings which lasted a reasonable length of time and
which were reported in a coherent manner.
I have strongly urged the Air Force to ask physical and social scientists of
stature to make a respectable, scholarly study of the UFO phenomenon. Now
that the first firm steps have been taken toward such a study, I can set forth
something of what I have learned, particularly as it relates to frequently made
misstatements about UFO's. Some of these statements which lead to mis-
conceptions are:
—(1) Only UFO "buffs" report UFO's. The exact opposite is much nearer the
truth. Only a negligible handful of reports submitted to the Air Force are from
the "true believers," the same who attend UFO conventions and who are mem-
bers of "gee-whiz" groups. It has been my experience that quite generally the
truly puzzling reports come from people who have not given much or any thought
to UFO's.
(2) UFO's are reported by unreliable, unstable, and uneducated people. This
is, of course, true. But UFO's are reported in even greater numbers by reliable,
stable, and educated people. The most articulate reports come from obviously
intelligent observers; dullards rarely overcome their inherent inertia toward
making written reports.
(3) UFO's are never reported by scientifically trained people. This is un-
equivocally false. Some of the very best, most coherent reports have come from
scientifically trained people. It is true that scientists are reluctant to make a
public report. They also usually request anonymity which is always granted.
(4) UFO's are never seen at close range and are always reported vaguely.
When we speak of the body of puzzling reports, we exclude all those which fit
the above description. I have in my files several hundred reports which are
J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 43, 311 (1953).