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.

185
The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences Vol. XV, No. II, pp. 92-96 March—April, 1968
Establishing Observer Creditability:
A Proposed Method'
Sydney Walker III, M. D.'
Abstract
This article is a brief review of the critical chain of linked
processes—anatomic, physiologic, and psychological—which
operate to determine the nature of the observations made
by an individual, whether of an accident, a planned experi-
ment, or an extraterrestrial phenomenon such as a "UFO."
One purpose of such a review is to demonstrate how, through
the use of proper medical examination, the integrity of the
observer system can be established in such a way that eye
witness creditability does not have to be left to the kind of
speculation in which it SO frequently finds itself today. With-
out seine such investigation, it is not known whether the
reporting observer has, for example, serious visual abnor-
malities, a brain tumor that causes visual hallucinations, or
character pathology such that he is prone to attract attention
to himself by fabricating or frankly lying about what he has
seen.
. That such observer evaluations have not been previously
proposed is probably because adequate assessment depends on
incorporating the approaches and tools of several medical
specialities, rather than one.
Introduction and Rationale
Human testimony to events which have been ob-
served is crucial to science, law, and the national se-
curity. Yet the creditability of such testimony is fre-
quently left either entirely to speculation or, at best,
inadequately ascertained.
One need merely to look at the current controversy
and confusion surrounding the issue of unidentified
flying objects (UFO's) to appreciate the need for care-
ful observer assessment. Only after observer credit-
ability has been established, can one sort out the "soft
data" of UFO reports and scrutinize them for scientific
usefulness [I].
One recourse, or course, is to deal only with "hard
data" and to simply refuse to deal in any way with eye
witness reports, contending that such observations are
unlikely because they are too bizarre or have previously
been reported only by "crazy people." This kind of
reaction reflects scientific closed-mindedness. It is
apt to be based in prejudice or fear of the unknown
(particularly when that unknown, if taken seriously,
would threaten one's safety or survival). Such an at-
titude is among those which the scientist who wants
to be objective will guard against, in the interest of
'Manuscript submitted February 1968.
2 2337 Glendon Ave., Los Angeles, California 90064.
truth and progress. On the other hand, the opposite
position of complete, unquestioning faith in observer
reports is no better.
This author suggests an initial attitude of "benevo-
lent skepticism" because of an acute awareness of the
myriad of individual processes (and maladies) that
determine what has been witnessed and how it is
described. Further, and more importantly it is pro-
posed that specific, specialized medical assessment of
individual observers is essential to establishing the
integrity of the observer system. Following careful,
clinical investigation, much of the human error in
observation can be placed into a perspective which
eliminates the "blind faith" in eye-witness testimony
and gives the reported data a confidence proportionate
to its value.
Although it is well-known that specific training can
serve to increase observational acuity, the basic in-
dividual ability is variable. l'eople differ considerably
in terms of genetic endowment, neurologic integrity,
and personality characteristics and dynamics—all of
which account for what they see or say they have seen.
By applying selected methods used in medicine, par-
ticularly in neurology, psychiatry, and neuro-oph-
thalmology, observers can be clinically evaluated for
creditability, both predictive and retrospective. Such
an approach offers both quantitative and qualitative
assessment of central nervous system functioning as it
would be reflected in observational reporting.
Adequate clinical assessment of an observer must
involve cross-disciplinary integration because of the
nature of the bodily processes involved in seeing and
reporting an event. In the beginning, the event is per-
ceived. Usually, this is basically a matter of seeing,
although other sensory modalities can also be involved.
The initial critical consideration, then, is the state of
the eye (cornea, lens, retina) and its connections with
the brain (optic nerve, tract, temporal, parietal, and
occipital lobes). A careful examination of these struc-
tures (both directly and indirectly) can establish
whether or not it would have been possible for a par-
ticular individual to have perceived what he has re-
ported or whether, on the sole basis of the state of his
input apparatus, his observation was distorted.
Once it has been established that a visual image can
be picked up and transmitted, unmolested and un-
1
97-818 0-68 13