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.

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