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
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
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.