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
183 0 The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences Vol. XV, No. 1, pp. 44-45 Jan.-Feb., 1968 Future Experiments on Anomalistic Observational Phenomena The requirement for additional experiments in the area of anomalistic phenomena is given, based upon the pau- city of "hard data"; relevant data collected by astrono- mers, meteoriticists, and meteorologists, which would be either over-looked or not detected; and the possible "fil- tering" and/or "editing" out of pertinent data by our various space surveillance systems prior to its evaluation. An experiment involving two cameras slaved to a detec- tion radar is outlined broadly and it is concluded that such a system should be constructed for use in meteoritic, meteorological, astronautical, psychological, and "ITFO" study programs. The majority of our astronomical equipment (e.g., con- ventional photographic telescopes, Baker-Nunn cameras, meteor cameras, Markowitz dual-rate Moon Cameras, etc.) are special-purpose by their very nature and would probably not detect the anomalou.s luminous phenomenon reported by the casual observer if it were indeed present. Their photo- graphic speed, field of view, etc. put definite limits on their capability to collect data on objects other than those for which they have been specially designed. Even if such data were eolleeted, the recognition of their uniqueness or anom- alous character by an experimenter is improbable. Examples abound in celestial nechanics of minor planets being detected on old astronomical plates that had been measured for other purposes and then abandoned. Tomissogli-44--€144.4.4wy—of Plitte-feemi-rekher k-tiew4i--oNalupki. The space surveillance systems are almost programmed to overlook anomalous data. Any hard-data arising from an object or manifestation that did not move on a nearly two-body orbit, had a low radar cross section, or followed an erratic path would most probably be filtered out of the system by various data-editing, or data-weighting procedures [1], which are inherent in most of 0111 sophisticated space surveillance systems. A representative space surveillance radar may have a beam width of N° for detection and require accurate orbital in- formation good to 0.01° for fine tracking. Needless to say, such radars often miss even well-known spacecraft and would be completely inadequate for "locking-on" to a hypothetical "DFO." To be sure, advanced radar systems air being de- vekii2ed for our missile defense systems, such as the ALTAR (AUJRA Longrange Tracking and Instrumentation Radar), TRADEx (Target Resolution and Discrimination Ex- periments) and the phased array RESER (Re-entry System Evaluation Radar) system. Although they extend the field of view, they still are developed to filter out anomalous sig- nals. As Cheetam [2] points out, "Power and aperture will be programmed after a learning measurement cycle to con- serve and efficiently distribute available energy when and where (re-entry) targets are estimated to exist." Not only are conventional sensors almost insensitive to anomalous data, but observations published by trained scientists, that could be hard-data records of anomalistic phenomena, are often too quickly categorized and then for- gotten. The observation by Mohr [3] in a letter to Science in 1966 gave an account of a "most unusual fly" and described a very remarkable and almost bizarre event that might or might not have been ball lightning. The Tunguska event of 1908 may well have been a impacting comet[4] and is usually studied in the context of meteoritics [5]. Similarly,the Cana- dian fireball procession of 9 February 1913 could have been an ephemeral natural satellite of the Earth [6] or it could have been something more involved. In most such cases, and as is also the situation in published UFO studies [7], [8], [10],information-rich hard-data of high quality are rather hard to come by. It therefore suggests itself that a special experi- mental program is in order. The scientific method usually dictates experiments in the fa:* of anomalous data and, at the moment, there seems to be sufficient unexplained anomalous hard-and-soft data to warrant an experimental program. Sev- eral experiments suggest themselves and might include geologi- cal studies,searches for scraps of material evidence,psychiatric- medical studies of witnesses, or radar/optical. arrays. In broad outline, one recommenbd experiment would involve a large aperture tracking radar that would slave two cinetheodolite-type optical trackers if and when an anomalous object appeared. The radar "lock-on" and tracking-data- analysis program would be especially designed to avoid satellites and, if possible, common meteors and airplanes, but would, for example, detect comet or macrometeorite entry, ball lightning, and any erratic or anomalous object within its range (a range that would probably be limited to 500 km or less). Thus, the system might at least provide accurate positional information that would provide useful meteoritic data and meteorological data in the absence of more bizarre phenomena. The cameras (preferably using Schmidt-type, Maksutov, or Baker catadioptric type optics and, perhaps, computer-enhanced digitalized pictorial data [11]) would be on a 5 to 10 km base fine (the "lock-on" pro- gram for the active skin-tracking radar might follow the modified Leuschner...differential-correction system suggested on pp. 114 and 115 of reference 11]) and the system would need to be reliable enough to operate unattended for weeks at a time. As shown by studies of meteorite and comet flux, such as Hartmann's 112], Shoemaker and Lowery [13], Mc- Crosky 114], and Lamar's [5], a waiting period of a year or so is necessary in order to have significant probability of de- tecting and tracking such natural extraterrestrial objects. The quest ion of the proper ge,graphieal location of the ex- perimental site would almost be as important as the speci- fication of the radar/optical and computer/communications eomplex itself. The meteoriticist would probably prefer an area with good atmospheric seeing and of low population density such as the "... Tucson area ..." [15]. The geologist would prefer a location near dry lakes [16]in order to facilitate the passible recovery of meteoritic or other material, or timely study of manifestations of cometary impact or sub-end-point meteoritic debris [17]. The psychiatrist would be concerned with the psychiatric-medical credence levels of eye witness (soft data) associated with any hard data that might be ob- tained by the experimental array[18]as well as the general psy- chological analysis of the "... tendency all over the world to believe in saucers and'to want them real,..." [19]. Thus, he would tend to prefer a site in a moderate population density area. The physicist interested in ball lightning might wish for a site in which atmospheric electrical disturbances were
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.