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.

14
It
may
be
that,
properly
investigated,
many
of
the
Air
Force
un-
identifieds
would
turn
out
to
be
IFO's
after
all,
but
it
is illogical
to
conclude that
this
would
be
true
of
all
unidentified reports.
As
long
as
unidentified
cases
exist,
thus
bona
fide
UFO's
according to
defini-
tion,
we
don't
know
what
they
are,
and
these
should
represent
a
re-
markable
challenge
to
science
and an
open
invitation
to
inquiry.
But
so
powerful
and
all
-encompassing
have
the
misconceptions
among
scientists
been
about
the nature
of
UFO
information
that
anamazing
lethargy
and
apathy
to
investigation
has
prevailed.
Thisapathy
is
unbecoming
to
the
ideals
of
science
and
undermines pub-
lic
confidence.
Now
it is
of
interest
to report that
in
just
the past
few
years,
prob-ably
because
of
the
persistent
flow
of
UFO
reports
from
this
and
many
other
countries
(one
could base
his
whole
plea
for
a
major
in-vestigative
effort
solely
on
the
reports
of
the
years
1966
and
1967)
there
has
been
a
growing
but
unheralded
interest
on
the part
of
more
and more
scientists,
engineers,
and
technicians
in
doing something
positive
about
the
UFO
problem.
To
this
growing
body
of
qualified
people
it
seems
increasingly
preposterous to allow
another
two
decades
of
confusion to
exist.
The
feeling
is
definitely
on
the
increase
that
we
should
either
fish
or
cut
bait,
that
we
should
mobilize
in
earnest
adequate
groups of
scientists
and
investigators,
properly
funded, adopt
a
"we
mean
busi-
ness"
attitude,
or
drop
the
whole
thing.
My
recommendation
is
to
fish.
As
a
scientist
I
can
form
conclusions
from
and
act
upon
only
reliable
scientific
data.
Such
data
are
extremely
scarce
in
the
UFO
field
for
reasons already pointed
out:
it
has never been
considered
worthwhile
to
improve
the data
-gathering process
because the
whole
subject
has
been prejudged.
Even
as
a
scientist,
however,
I am
permitted
a
scien-
tific
hunch,
and
that
hunch
has
told
me
for
some
time,
despite
the
tremendous muddiness of
the
scientific
waters in
this
area,
the con-
tinued
reportincr
b from
various parts
of
the
world of
unidentified flyingobjects,
reports frequently
made
by
people
of high
repute
who
would
stand nothing whatever
to
gain
from making
such
reports,
that
there
is
scientific
paydirt in
the
UFO
phenomenon—possibly
extremely
valuable
paydirt—and
that
therefore
a
scientific
effort
on
a much
larger
scale
than
any
heretofore
should be
mounted
for
a
frontal
at-
tack
on
this
problem.
In
saying
this
I
do
not
feel
that
I
can be
labeled
a
flying
saucer
"believer"—my
swamp
gas
record in the
Michigan
UFO
melee should
suffice
to
quash
any
such
ideas—but
I
do
feel
that
even
though
this
may
be an
area
of
scientific
quicksand,
signals
continue to point to
a
mystery
that needs to
be
solved.
Can we
aford
to overlook
somethingthat
might
be of great
potential
value to the
Nation?
I am
reminded of the old story
of the
member
of Parliament
who
visited
Faraday's
laboratory
where he was
at
work on
early experi-
ments on
electrical
induction.
When
asked of
what
possible
value
all
this
might
have,
Faraday
replied,
"Sir,
someday you
may
be
able to
tax
it."
Apart from
such inducements,
I
have the following
recommenda-
tions to
make:
first,
that
a mechanism be
set
up whereby the problem
posed
by
the reports
from
all
over the world, but
especially
by
those
in the United
States,
from
people of high
credibility,
can be ade-