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
186 altered, along normal pathways to the back of the brain to allow for perception, the next question is how the brain codes it. This involves the ability to deal with detail, to make associations and spatial relationships, and to do other intellectual work, all of which occurs very rapidly and before the processed material is made available at the tempero-parietal lobe level for com- munication or for a reaction of any other kind. A great many pathways and a number of brain areas are opera- tive in this critical coding step, and a number of prob- lems, both anatomic and physiologic, can affect the process, either subtlely or grossly. The responsibility of the clinician here would be to test cortical integra- tive ability with the various neurologic testing tech- niques available to him. He must also rule out (by careful history, general physical examination, and certain laboratory measures) the innumerable disease states—toxic, infectious, endocrine, metabolic, de- ficiency, and neuropathologic—that can subtlely alter cortical functioning and thus interfere with the coding of an observation. The next step in observer evaluation is the psychi- atric part which, if properly carried out, will probably be the statistically most fruitful for uncovering observer creditability gaps. This is in part because the same types of disease processes listed above for interfering with cortical integration (coding) also can cause such mental aberrations as frank hallucinations and delu- sions or lead a person to fill in with make-believe de- tails (confabulate) the parts of a report that his brain condition no longer allows him to remember. In addi- tion, there are the purely psychological problems, based in background factors, which lead an observer to deliberately fabricate or unwittingly distort what he has seen. If consciously driven, his motivation may be fame, fortune, competitive strivings or some rather specific, complicated need which has been tapped by witnessing the event he is reporting. If the distortion has its roots at an unconscious level, it is likely that it was triggered by something about the event in re- lation to the patient's remote past. In the case of a functionally psychotic person, the entire observation may be the product of his own intrapsychic life in- stead of having had anything at all to do with an ex- ternal event. On the opposite end of the continuum is the normal or only mildly neurotic person whose "hang-ups" are such that they have either not sub- stantially affected his report or have only very subtlely colored a small detail. It may be just as important to ascertain this. Other aspects of the psychiatric part of observer examinations are the matters of intellectual differences and language factors, both of which would have some bearing on the reporter's strengths and limitations as a creditable and adequate observer. A sound systematic method for ascertaining observer creditability would have widespread application. People in the legal profession grapple daily with this problem [2]. Eye-witness testimony determines in- dividual life and death decisions in courtrooms. On an even grander scale, it shapes far-reaching diplomatic and military policy. In the laboratory or other sci- entific setting, when inaccurate, it can lead to an hor- rendous waste of money and professional man-hours. In all these situations, we should be demanding to know more about the likelihood of a crucial observa- tion before acting on it. Many people in science, technology and government perform basically observational roles. Some of these individuals are in such responsible positions that what they think they see or say they have seen, and how they respond to it, could profoundly affect the course of human events. (Such a statement will not seem overdramatic or exaggerated to those readers who have some knowledge of how, for example, our na- tional security system operates.) The choice of these people on the basis of tenure, military rank or years of good conduct seems hardly pertinent, since these factors don't necessarily reflect anything about the state of their central nervous system. Given our ex- treme reliance on some of these individuals, it is sug- gested that they be screened for observational in- tegrity prior to placement in key positions and that they also be given periodic follow-up evaluations. All-encompassing medical assessments of observers have not, to this author's knowledge, been previously proposed. This is probably because developing the idea and applying the methods entails a working knowl- edge of at least three of those medical specialties which focus on the central nervous ystem. It also demands an eagerness to integrate certain aspects of each spe- cialty, for purposes of problem-solving. The desired end, in this case, is a more complete understanding of the individual observer. Rather than extensively elaborating on the neces- sary examination techniques, the following outline stresses processes, structures, and diseases that de- termine the nature of reported observations. The spe- cifics of the material are intended mostly for the non- medical reader, since the question of observer credit- ability is so often his business and since he will be the one in the position to decide when to request the special assessment. METHOD The initial phase of integrated eye-witness assess- ment is a general medical evaluation. This involves, besides the complete physical examination, a careful history and selected laboratory studies. The rationale for beginning in this way is screening, since many dis- orders of other organ systems are well-known for their adverse effects on central nervous system functioning. Knowledge about the background and current status of the observer's general bodily health will alert the physician to which areas will need further investiga- tion and which of the later, special examinations will
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.