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.

74
from
a
potential
population
of
sighters
of
40
million
might
seem
to
argue
that
perhaps
we
really
cannot
expect
to get
many
photos of
UFOs.
However,
one
of
the
principal
reasons for
citing
the foregoing
is
to
bring
out
the
difficulties
in
drawing
any
firm
conclusions.
A
phenomenon
lasting
30
seconds
scarcely
permits
the
observer
time
to
collect
his
wits
and
to
swing
into
photographic
action
if
he
does
have
a
loaded
camera.
UFO
sightings
have
often
extended over
much
longer
than
30
seconds,
by
contrast,
affording
far
better
opportunity
to
think
of
snapping
a
photo.
But,
on
the other
hand,
sighting
a
UFO
in
daytime
at
close
range,
judging
from
my
own
witness
-interviewing
experience,
is
a
far
more
disconcerting
and
astonishing
matter
than
viewing
a
brilliant
meteor.
Thus
one can go
back
and
forth,
With
so
little
assurance
of
meaningfulness
of
any
of
the
relevant
weight
factors
that the
end
result
is
not
satisfactory.
I
simply
do
not
know
what
to
think
about
the
paucity
of
good
UFO
photos,
though
I
do
feel
uncomfortable
about
it.
2.
Case
40.
Corning,
Calif.,
July
4,
1967
A
case
that
may
shed
at
least
a
bit
of
light
on
the paucity of photos
involves
a
multiple
-witness
sighting
near
dawn
at Corning,
Calif.,
on
7/4/67.
I
have
interviewed
four
witnesses
who
sighted
the
object
from
two
separate
locations
involving
lines
of
sight
at roughly
right angles,
serving
to
confirm
the
location
of
the
object
as
almost
directly
over
Highway
5
just
west
of Corning.
JayMunger,
proprietor
of
an
all-night
bowling
alley,
was
having
coffee
with
two
police
officers,
Frank Rakes
and
James
Overton,
when
he
'spotted
the
object
through the
front
window
of
his place.
All
three 'rushed
out
to
the parking
lot
to
observe
what
they
described
as
a
large
flattened
sphere or
possibly
football
-
shaped
object,
with
a
brilliant
light
shining
upward
from
the
top
and a
dim-
mer
light
shining
down
from
the
underside.
The
dawn
light
was
such
that the
object
was
visible
by
reflected
light
even though
the
object's
beams
were
dis-
cernible.
It
appeared
at
first
to
be
hovering
almost
motionless
at
a
few
hundred
feet
above ground,
and
all
three
felt it
lay
about over
Hwy.
5
(which
estimate
proved
correct
from
sightings
made
on
the
highway by
the independent
wit-
nesses).
Their
estimates
of
size
varied
from
a
diameter
of
maybe 50
feet to
about
100
ft.
It
was
silent,
and
the three
men
all
emphasized
to
me
that
the
quiet
morning would have
permitted
hearing
any
kind
of conventional
aircraft
engines.
All three said
they
had
never
before
seen anything
like
it.
Munger
decided
to
phone
his
wife
to
have
her
see
the
thing,
and
by
the
time he
came
back out
from
phoning,
the
object
had moved
southward
along the
highway
by about
a
quarter
of
a
mile
or
so.
At
about
that
juncture,
it
began
to
accelerate,
and moved
off
al-
most
horizontally,
passing
out of
sight
to the south
in
an
additional
time
esti-
mated
at
about 10-20
seconds.
This case
is
relevant
to
the photo
question
since
Officer
Overton
was
on
duty
and had
in
his patrol
car
both
binoculars
and
a
loaded
camera.
When
I
asked
him
why
he
didn't try to
get
a
picture
of
the
object,
he
admitted
that
he
was
so
astonished
by
the
object
that
he
never even thought of dashing for the
camera.
I
asked
Munger
to
go
through the motions that
would
yield
a
time
esitmate
of the
period
he
was
inside
phoning, to get
a
rough
notion
of
how
long Overton,along with
Rakes,
looked
at
it
without
thinking
of the
camera.
The
time
was
thus
estimated
by
Munger
as about
a
minute
and
a
half, possibly
two
minutes.
•
Digcusgion. It
may
be
hazardous
to
try
to
draw any
conclusions
from
such a
case.
but
I
do
think
it
suggests
the
uncertainty
we
face
in
trying to assess the
likelihood
of
any
given witness
getting
a
photo of
a
UFO
he happens
to see.
A
colleague
of
mine
at the
University
of Arizona
was
out
photographing
desert
flowers
on
a
day
when a
most
unusual
meteorological
event
occurred
nearby—
a
tornado funnel
came down
from
a
cloud. Despite having the loaded
camera
at
hand,
despite
having
just been taking other
pictures,
and
despite
the great
rarity
of Arizona tornadoes, that
colleague
conceded that
it
wasn't
till
much
later
that the thought of
getting
a
photo
rose to consciousness,
by which time the fun-nel
was
long since
dissipated.
In
the Trinidad,
Colo.,
case of
March
23,
1966
(Case 14
above), Mrs. Frank
R. Hoch
pointed
out
to
me
that she
had
loaded
still
and movie cameras
inside
the house, yet never thought about
getting
a
photo. Again,
th'e
reason
cited
was
the
fascination
with the
objects
being viewed.
I
think
this "factor of
astonish-
ment" would have
to be allowed for in
any
attempt to estimate expected
num-
bers of photos,
but
I
would be
quite
unsure of just
how
to evaluate the factor
quantitatively.