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.
“The Advance”52 pages
181 enhanced by flaring, halation, adjacency effects, etc.) is also not compatible with the photographic experi- ments, since planes close enough to give rise to the images shown on the film clip would also exhibit some airplane structure as shown in Figure 6-24, page 323 of reference [3] in which the airplane images are of a size and brightness comparable to that of the unknowns. This figure is a blow-up of a 16 mm frame from a camera of the same type as Mariana's, with the same stop setting and 3" telephoto lens. During the experimental filming, relative Sun angle, weather, etc., were the same as that reported by Mariana and verified by the Mon- tana film itself, except that the jets were on a different heading—not 171°—in order to obtain optimal Sun reflections. The jet planes shown in the figure were at a distance of 2.5 miles and their structure exhibited angular dimensions of about 4 by 1 milliradians, whereas their elliptical, Sun -reflection flare image exhibited angular dimensions of about 6 by 1.4 milliradians. Upon close inspection, the flare included a roughly circular bright nucleus and a comet -like "tail" of lesser brightness about 4.4 milliradians long. This comet -like Sun flare, which is not exhibited on the Montana film, is also generally characteristic of airplane -fuselage Sun reflections having approximately the same brightness as the Montana film objects. Even with the larger comet - like flare, the jets photographed during the photo-graphic experiment are clearly identifiable: Finally, airplanes at the limiting distance for resolution of struc- ture (over 6.5 miles), with the 3" telephoto lens used, would have to have been traveling at speeds in excess of the capability of the F -94's (above 600 mph [6]) in order to have been compatible with the angular rates of the images displayed on the film. At 6.5 miles a typical 50 foot airplane (such as an F-94) subtends angles of 1.5 x 0.4 milliradians or 5 3 / 4 by It minutes of are. The resolving power of the eye is from 1 to 3 minutes of arc (the Moon is about 30 minutes of arc in angular di- ameter). The actual resolving power of the camera used by Mariana (with the 3" telephoto lens and set at f/22) is from 2/3rds to one minute of arc even though its theoretical resolving power (exclusive of aberrations) is on the order of 2/3rds of a minute of arc (0.19 milli - radians). Thus, theoretically, and as borne out by the author's experiments, the F -94's would have been identifiable even at 6.5 miles. The (0.8) (1.51) = 1.2milliradians fuzzy image (as depicted on the film for UFO 8 1) would have somewhat obscured an airplane structure at this distance; but the structure would still have been recognizable. The angular (azimuthal) velocity of the objects was found to be 0.019, 2 radians/second. Equipped with the knowledge of the focal length and frame speed (16 frames per second) of Mariana's camera and the fore- ground during the filming, the transverse component of the velocity of the objects can be correlated to their height above the local terrain (3,312 ft) and distances from the observer (for the objects when they first appear on the film). Since only angular distances from one station are available for measurement, their actual range cannot be determined. On the other hand, Table I can be constructed on the basis of a variety of hypo- thetical ranges. The measurements of the diameter of the developed images presented in Fig. I are the least accurate of all the data because of the smallness of the dimension and the fuzziness of the images. The image of any brilliant light source as seen by either the eye or a camera can appear much larger than the source itself. This fact had obvious bearing on the analysis of the TABLE I Hypothetical Range, Heights, and Speeds (Pier) Height , (Feet) _ S T pe r : c r, e n r p s r, ) Speed at 171° heading (mid1) _Speedifsor °Ca, i ll: (mPh) Comments0.5 690 55. 64' Upper limit to bird speed; Intl birds would have been re• solved.' 2.0 2,730 158. 197. 382' Usual F-94 speed in a landing pattern is 130 to 190 mph; bit) would easily have been resolved. 6.5 8,860 470. 600. 1,140' Maximum(dive) F-94 speed is 602 mph; but would have beet resolved. 563 950,000 39,000 Low -speed meteors 171; but would not be detected at thit (290 km) range on a bright day. Atmosphere too thin above 100 kn for bolides or fireballs. 2,260 5,610,000 156,000 High-speed meteors 171; but would not be detected at thit (1,710 km) range on a bright day. Atmosphere too thin above 100 kn bolides or fireballs. ' Above the observer—Add 3,312 ft. for absolute altitt de. 'Includes 20 mph component of head winds. 'Ducks, geese, etc. would be flapping or swooping and would not appear like the objects on the film at any distance.
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.