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.
“UFO Files”31 pages
27 amined hundreds of cases and rejected the alternative hypothesis as capable of accounting for them. I am afraid that this possibility has sufficiently good backing for it, despite its low a priori ability, that we must examine it. I think your committee, with its many concerns for the entire aerospace pro- gram, as well as our whole national scientific program, has a very special reason for examining that possibility. Should that possibility be correct, if there is even a chance of its being correct, we ought to get our best people looking at it. Instead, we are collectively laughingat this possibility. To meet Mr. Rumsfeld's request, let me remark on Dr. Hynek's two recommendations. I strongly concur in the need for some new approach. I am sure Dr. Hynek was not suggesting there be one single UFO committee. In fact, he said, "not a one-shot approach." A plu- ralistic approach to the problem is needed here. The Defense Department is already supporting some work on it. NASA definitely has a need to look at this problem. We have to pay very serious attention to the problem and get a variety of new approaches. The other point Dr. Hynek mentioned was that we try to look at this on a worldwide basis. This is crucially important. We are dealing with a real problem here, and I insist it is a global problem. We canstudy it in the United States, but if we ignore what is happening in France and England—one of the greatest UFO waves that ever occurred was in France—would be a serious mistake. I strongly urge that your committee consider holding rather more extensive hearings in which a larger segment of the scientific community is given the Opportunity to talk pro and con on the issue, hearings aimed at getting a new measure of scientific attention to this important problem. Thank you. Mr. RousH. Thank you, Dr. McDonald, for your presentation. As we explained awhile ago, we are pressed for time. We are enter- taining questions from members of the committee. Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Dr. McDonald, I want to compliment you on your inter- esting statement. But what leads you to believe that whatever these phenomena are, they are extraterrestrial? What facts do you have? Dr. MCDONALD. May I say I wouldn't use the word "believe." I would say the "hypothesis" that these are extraterrestrial surveillance,is the hypothesis I presently regard as most likely. As I mentioned, it is not hard facts in the sense of irrefutable proof, but dealing with case after case wherein the witnesses showed credi-bility I can't impugn. That impresses me. These are not at all like geophysical or astronomical phenomena they appear to be craft -like machine -like devices. I would have to answer you in terms of case after case that I and others have investigated, to make all this clear. It is this very large body of impressive witnesses' testimony, radar - tracking data on ultra-high-speed objects sometimes moving at over 5,000 miles an hour, UFO's,combined radar -visual sightings, and just too much other consistent evidence that suggests we are dealing with machine -like devices from somewhere else.
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.