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.

227
of
descent.
Still,
much
more
detailed
information concerning
such
things
as
shape
could
presumably be
extracted
by
techniques
(akin
to
those
already
used
in
criminal
cases) designed
to
take
fuller
advantage
of the
witnesses' usually
untapped but
vastly
more
discriminating
powers
of
recognition.
The
point,
here,
is
that
such
more
detailed
information
is
needed not
merely
for
its
own
sake. It
is
needed,
even
before
that,
because the establishment
of the
very
validity
of
the
information
in question
hinges
upon
the
demonstration
of
the kind
of
point
-for
-point
correspondence
between
reports
that
becomes
possi-
ble
only
when
those
reports
are
sufficiently
detailed.
If
two,
unrelated witnesses
both claim
to
have
seen
a
disk
-shaped
object
at
about
the
same
time
and
place
this
is
not
sufficiently
compelling.
(Evidently!
For
it
has
already
happened
many
times.)
But,
if
artists
working
with
the
two
witnesses,
independently,
construct
pictures
of
what
appears
to
be
the very
same
object or,
alternatively,
if
the
two
witnesses
independently
point
to
the very
same
drawing
or
photo-
graph
in
an
array
of
50
or
more
different
pictures
of
such
objects,
then
the
coincidence
becomes
more
interesting.
(And,
of
course,
if
the
pictures recon-
structed
or
singled
out
in
this
way
just
once
turned
out
to
coincide,
also,
with
an
actual
photograph taken
at the
time,
we
should
at
last
have
opened
the
door
for
the
more
precise
measurements
of
physical
science—including the
sophisti-
cated
and
powerful photogrammetric
methods
being developed
for the
analysis
and
interpretation
of
lunar
photographs.)
The
establishment of
a
pre
-tested
and
standardized
procedure
for
reconstruct-
ing
information
by
the
sort
of
psychologically
oriented
techniques envisaged
here,
moreover,
would
be
incomparably cheaper
than
the
implementation
of
other
more
physically oriented
schemes
that
have
sometimes
been
proposed—
such
as
the
construction
of
a
far-flung
network
of
automatic
radar
-and
-camera
stations.
For,
instead
of
having
simultaneously
to
cover
all
possible
sites
in
advance,
we
could
simply
move
in
to
recover
the
desired
information
after
an
incident
is
first
reported.
There
is,
however, one
unavoidable
aspect of
the
psychologically oriented
type
of approach
proposed here that
I,
anyway,
regard
as
quite
regrettable.
To
the
extent that
any
detailed pictures
reconstructed
by
these techniques
are
made
publically
available,
we
cannot
guarantee that
pictures
obtained
from
sub-
sequent
witnesses
will
be
suitably
independent
for
our
purposes.
Consequently,
rather
tight security
precautions
would have
to
be
imposed
on
the
more
detailed
reconstructions,
if
the
purely
scientific
purposes of
the
investigation
are not
to
be compromised.
The
U8(3
of
concrete stimuli
to
provide a
basis
for
the independent,
recognition
-
guided
process
of
reconstruction
The
need
for
ensuring independence
of
information
supplied
by
different
wit-
nesses
is
in
fact so great that
it
is
doubtful
whether
much
reliance
could
safely
be placed
on
different
pictures
reconstructed
with
the help of the
same
artist.
Despite the
best intentions
of the
artist,
he might
unwittingly
guide
different
witnesses
along
somewhat
similar
channels
by
means
of
subtle,
perhaps uncon-
scious
cues
(cf.,
Rosenthal, 1966).
Moreover, even
if
a
different
artist
could
be
supplied
for
each
witness,
we
would
still
be
left
with the
problem
of evaluating
the
likelihood
that
any two
pictures
constructed in
this
way
could
have
turned
out
as
similarly
as
they
did
by chance
alone.
For
these
reasons
and
for reasons of
feasibility,
convenience,
and economy,
it
would be
preferable
to develop
a
standardized
set
of materials containing
suit-
ably
representative
and
graded
series
of
shapes
to
which
each
witness could
independently respond.
Some
such
materials
would
be needed,
in
any
case, in
order
to
provide stimuli suitable
for tapping the
witnesses'
powers
of
recognition.
Possibly
even
separate arrays should be
constructed for
distinguishable parts
such as
"domes"
or other
projections
(just
as
separate
series
of
eyes,
or mouths
may
be
helpful to
the witness in
criminal eases).
By
means
of
suitable
standard-
ization
and
control in
the preparation
and
presentation
of such
materials, then,
we
could
be
reasonably sure that the responses of
one
witness are not unduly
influencing
the
choices
of another.
Moreover,
since
each witness
would
make
his choices
from a
pre
-tested, fixed set
of
alternatives
of
known
size,
we
would
be
in
a
favorable
position to assess the
probability
that
any
coincidences of
choice
might have
occurred merely by
chance.
All things considered, the best procedure might be to divide the questioning
of
a
witness into the following three
distinct
phases:
first,
the recording of the