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.

218
is
a
very
high
fraction
of
system
weight.
It
is
interesting
to note that
most
scien-
tific
progress
has
come
from
doing
things
differently
rather
than
using
the
same
technique—microcircuits
aren't
just
smaller
vacuum
tubes;
lasers
aren't
just
better light
bulbs.
Many
people
are not
aware
that
the
U.S.
Patent
Office
has
granted
more
than
ten patents
for
what
one
might
honestly
call flying
saucer
shaped
craft
all
of
which
claim great maneuverability
and
the
ability
to
rise
vertically.
Some
can
supposedly
hover.
None
of
these
use
magnetoaerodynamic
techniques.
For
those
who
are
interested,
the
patents
are
listed
in
Appendix
3.
This
list
hasn't
been
up
-dated
for
a
couple
of
years.
26.
Have
any members
of
your
audience
seen
any
UFOs?
I
have
taken
to
asking
whether
any members
of
my
audiences
have
seen
what
they
would
call
a
UFO.
Typically
3-10%
are
willing
to
raise their
hands
and
usually
there
are
others
who
approach
me
privately.
These
data,
though
limited.
tend
to
support the Gallup
Poll
of
1966 which
revealed
that
5
million
adult
Ameri-
cans
claimed
to
have
observed
a
UFO.
Interestingly
enough
the
official files
con-
tain
fewer than
12,000
reports.
27.
Were
these
sightings
by
your
audience
reported
to
investigative
bodies?
In
general, no.
At
Los Alamos
Scientific
Laboratory
25
of the
600
listeners
indicated
that
they
had
seen
something
odd
but
only
one
had
reported
what
he
had
seen.
28.
Is
there
some
way
to
get
more
data
about
UFOs
besides
reading
reports?
There
are
several
approaches
that should
be
taken.
(a)
Lift
the "laughter curtain"
so
that
more
observers
are
willing
to
re-
port
what
they
see
and more
scientists
will
become
involved.
(
b
)
Using
existing
technology
establish
instrumented
investigative
teamsand
automated
observation
instrumentation
such
as
that
recommended
by
Dr. Baker
before
the
Committee on
Science
and
Astronautics.
(o)
A
world
wide communication
and
study
effort
should
be begun.
(d)
A
very
large
survey
should
be
conducted
to
determine
the
character-
istics
of the
objects
that
have
been
observed.
The
most
comprehensive
pic-
ture
we
have
of
ball
lightning
resulted
from
carefully
conducted surveys
by
McNally
64
and
Rayle.
UFOs
in
my
opinion
are
definitely
not
ball
lightning
or
other natural
plasmas but are analagous
to
ball
lightning
and
earthquakes
in
that
their
appearance cannot be
predicted
and
they cannot
be reproduced
in
the
lab
or
in
the
field
but they
have
been
observed.29.
Are
there
any
other
references
of
interest
to
scientists?
Yes, References
56-62.
30.
Haven't
you
biased
your
comments
by
not
discussing
at
any
length
the
work
of Marcowitz, Menzel,
and
Klass?
The
paper
by Marcowitz
12
and
the
books
by
Menzel
'
and
Klass
will un-
doubtedly
be read
by
scientists
of
the 21st century
as
"classics"
illustrating
a
non-scientific
approach
to
UFOs
by
people
who,
for
whatever
reason,
would
not
examine
the data
relevant to
UFOs
or advanced
technology.
Marcowitz
was
totally
wrong
about
fission
and
fusion propulsion
systems,
didn't
even
consider
electromagnetic propulsion,
and
was
obviously
unaware
of current technology
and
the
data
such
as
I
mentioned
earlier
about
UFOs.
McDonald
62
has
discussed
Menzel's
approach
in
detail,
but
let
me
also
point
out
that in
Ref.
64,
fewer
than
30
sightings
ever
listed
as
"unknowns"
were
discussed
and no
mention
was made
of the
434
"Unknowns"
of Ref.
3
or even the
71
Excellent
Unknowns
of
this
study.
I
agree with Klass on
only
one
item,
many
people
have
observed glowing plasmasbut
I
believe
they
were
adjacent
to
vehicles
rather
than
ball
lightning
or
corona
discharge.
He
didn't
even
consider
this
possibility
despite
all
his
talk
about
plasmas
and
despite
the
enormous
amount
of plasma
-vehicle
data
which
is
avail-
able.
In
summary, I
feel
that these three
gentlemen
have
made
strong attempts
to
make
the data
fit
their
hypotheses rather
than
trying to
do
the
much
more
diffi-
cult
job of creating
hypotheses
which
fit
the data.
(
b) Using
existing
technology
establish
instrumented
investigative
teams andautomated
observation instrumentation
such as
that
recommended by Dr. Baker
before
the
Committee on
Science
and
Astronautics.
(o)
A
world wide communication and
study
effort
should be begun.
(d) A
very large
survey should be conducted
to
determine the
characteristics
of the
objects
that
have been observed.
The
most comprehensive
picture
we
haveof
ball lightning resulted
from
carefully
conducted surveys
by McNally
54 andRayle
"
UFOs
in
my
opinion are
definitely
not
ball lightning or other natural
plasmas but are analagous to ball lightning
and earthquakes in that their ap-
Footnotes at the end of
article.