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.

239
My
children
woke
me
at
6:00
a.m.
in
Tubingen,
Germany,
saying
that
they
were
watching
a
hovering
UFO
over
the
city.
I
grabbed
my
binoculars
and
watched
the
brilliant
light
move
rather rapidly
both
toward
us
and
away
from
us
and
even
from
side
to
side.
After
about a
minute,
I
decided
to
make
my
observations
more
precise,
backed
up
against
a
doorway, and
aligned
the
object
with
a
spot
on
the
window
frame.
Upon
doing
this,
it
stopped
moving,
and
we
were
soon
able
to
identify
it
as
Venus,
then
the
morning
star.
Its
laterial
motions
were
apparently
illusions
due
to
our
own
movements, and
its
rapid
approach
and
retreat
were
due
to
a
thin,
rapidly
mov-
ing
layer
of
mists
which
caused
it
to
change
intensity.
Within
the
last
year
I
have
positivelyidentified
UFO's
over
Fort
Collins,
Colorado
(pointed
out
to
me
usually
by
phone)
as
a
weather
kite,
the
planet
Venus,
and
the
stars
Vega,
Capella,
Betelguese,
and
Sirius.
Some
of
the
stars
close
to the
horizon
flashed
red,
green,
and
white,
and
only
a
star
chart
and
much
discussion
could
con-
vince
the
viewer
that
he
was
not
ob-
serving
a
spaceship.
In
many
other
cases,
data
are
not
quite
complete
enough
to
be
positive,
but
one can
state
with
a
high
degree
of
certainty
that
a
given
UFO
was
quite
likely
such
and
such
a
conven-
tional
object
or
phenomenon.
In
the
most
interesting
cases,
the
sighting
seems
absolutely
to
defy
expla-
nation
in
these
terms.
One
important
conclusion
becomes
apparent:
There
is
a
very
high
noise
level
in
UFO
observations.
This
is
ex-
actly
what one
might
expect.
People
do become
excited
by
news
stories
and
thereby predisposed
to
such
experi-
ences
themselves.
We
cannot,
however,
from
this
high
noise
level
write
off
the
entire
phenomenon
as
belonging
to
this
category
of
conventional
ob-
jects
misinterpreted.
Sagan
(1963)
at-
tempted
to
do
this
by
pointing
out
the
great
diversity
which
occurs
within the
sightings.
This might
well
be only
the
noise.
Even
if
spaceships are
visiting
us,
many
people are
still
seeing
con-
ventional
objects
and
interpreting
them
as spaceships.
The
sightings
which
do
not
fit
well
into
the conventional
-objects-misinter-
preted
category
have
certain
character-
istics
concerned
primarily with the
de-
tail
which
is
observed
and
with
the
nature
and
reliability
of
the
witnesses.
Sometimes
other
evidence
is
also
avail-
able.
If
only
a
moving
light
is
seen
at
a
great
distance,
one
can
hardly
be
tempted
to
run
out
and
meet
our
big
brothers
from
Mars.
Even
a
disc
or
a
globe
with
fairly
sharp
-appearing
edges
might
well
be
an
optical
effect
of
some
sort.
A
report
is
more
impressive
when
the
object
is
seen
at
close
hand,
espe-
cially
landed
on
the
ground.
A
very
distinct
shape
with
highly
distinct
edges,
and
a
solid,
often
metallic
-ap-
pearing surface
is
described.
Windows
or other
markings
may
be
apparent.Lights
are frequently
an
associated
part
of
the
observation,
and sometimes(both
day and
night)
the
brilliance
was
said
to
be so
high
that
the
ob-
server
found
it
difficult
to
continue
looking
at
the
UFO.
Occasionally,
one
part
of
the
UFO
is
described as
being
in
motion
relative
to
other
parts.
frhe
rim
of
a
disc
may
be
rotating
around
the
disc.)
"Occupants,"
both
human-
oid
and
otherwise,
have
been
reported
in
conjunction with
UFO's,
landed
and
flying.
The
quality
of
a
sighting
is
always
enhanced
when
the
time
of
ob-
servation
is
long
enough
for
the
ob-
server to
consciously consider
what
he
is
observing
while
he
is
observing
it.
A
light
that
moves
by
in
less
than
5
seconds
can
hardly
produce
a
very
im-
pressive
account.
In
some
cases
UFO's
have
been observed
for
1
or
2
hours
or
even
longer.
We
are primarily
concerned
with
witnesses.
Their
background
and
train-
ing are
especially
important,
and
it
is
valuable
when
a
single
sighting
is
de-
scribed
by
more
than
one
witness.
The
likelihood
of
hoax
is
decreased
if
thewitnesses
were
unknown
to
each
other
before the
sighting.
In
some
cases
an
account
may
besupported
by
various
forms
of
supple-
mentary
evidence.
There
are
many
cases
in
which
photographs
have been
taken
while
a
UFO
was
witnessed
by
several
apparently
competent
observ-
ers.
Holes have
been
left
in
the
ground
where
a
UFO
had
supposedly
landed,or
vegetation
has been
damaged
or
on
fire.
Occasionally (rarely), radioac-
tivity
has
been
detected. In
one
case
a
fence
was
magnetized
where
a
UFO
had
passed
over
it.
Many
strange
samples have been
left,
such
as
liquid
residues,
"angel's
hair,"
and
other
ma-
terials.
In
no
case,
of
course,
are
thesethings
by
themselves
conclusive,
since
virtually
any
sort
of
evidence
could
be
fraudulently
produced.
We
remain
de-
pendent
upon
the
reliability
of
the
wit-
nesses,
but
sometimes
these
secondary
evidences
can
contribute
to
an
evalua-
tion
of
the
sighting.
Many
radar
sightings
of
UFO's
are
on
file.
In
a
few
cases,
a
UFO
has
been
simultaneously
observed
by
radar
and
by
witnesses,
both
on
the
ground
and
in
an
aircraft.
Menzel
and
Boyd
(1963)
have
clearly
pointed out,
how-
ever,
that
radar
evidence
is
far
from
positive
proof.
There
are
many
nat-
ural
atmospheric
and
other
phenomena
as
well
as
imperfections
in
radar
instruments
which can
produce
so-called
radar
angels.
We
must
consider
the
argument
from
both
sides,
however.
Just
because
radar
angels are
not
nec-
essarily
UFO's,
we
are
still
not
en-
titled
to
conclude
that
any
unusual
blip
on
the screen
is
a
radar
angel?
,
We
should
certainly
not
conclude
that
UFO's
cannot
be
extraterrestrial
space-
ships,
because
if
they
were,
our
radar
net
would
pick
them
up.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is,
our
radar
net
does
pick
up
many
returns
which
are not
identi-
fiable
in
terms
of
known
aircraft (e.g.,
apparent
objects
moving
several
thou-
sand
miles
per
hour
through
the
at-
mosphere).
Many
of
these
are
un-
doubtedly
radar
angels
in
the
true
sense
of
the
word,
but
we
can't
say
that
some
are not spaceships
from
Mars!
A
secondary
form
of
supporting
evi-
dence
is
that
of
pattern.
While Sagan
(1963)
fails
to
see
any
pattern be-
cause
of
the
noise,
other
investigators
feel
that
many
patterns
can
be
estab-
lished
from
the
reports.
Figure
1
(UFO's
and
Mars
oppositions)
is
an
example
of
such
a
pattern.
Various
other
patterns
have
also
appeared.
Michel
studied
the
sightings
in
France
in
1954
and found
that
occasionally
(Fig.
2)
they
appeared
to
fall
upon
great
circle
arcs
of
the
earth's
surface
(Michel, 1958).
It
is
extremely
dif-
ficult
(Menzel,
1964;
Vallee,
1964)
to
evaluate the
significance
of
such
a
pat-
tern.
In
many
cases, the
lines
could
be
due
purely
to
chance.
In
the
ex-
ample
illustrated,
however,
with
six
points
upon
a
single
line,
one
can't
help
but be
somewhat
impressed.
If
all
of
these
criteria
are
met
for
a
given
UFO
report,
then
it
is
highly