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.

78
than
hazard
from
the car
-stopping
phenomenon.
Indeed, the
number
of
instances
of
what
we
might term
"car
-buzzing"
instances
that
have
involved
road
-accident
hazards
is
large
enough
to
be
mildly
disturbing,
yet
I
know
of
no
official
recogni-
tion
of
this
facet
of the
T_TFO
problem
either.
An
incident
I
learned
of
in Australiainvolved
such
fright
on
the
part
of
the
passengers of the
"buzzed"
vehicle
thatthey
jumped
out of
the
car
before
it
had
come
to
a
stop,
and
it
went
into
a
ditch.
A
similar
instance
occurred
not
long
ago
in
the U.S.
For
reasons
of space
-limita-
tions,
I
shall
not
cite
other
such
eases,
though
it
would
not be
difficult
to
assemble
a
list
that
would run
to
perhaps
a few
dozen.
2.
Mild
radiation
exposure
By
"radiation"
here,
I
do
not
mean
exposure
to
redioactivity
or
to
other
nuclear
radiations,
but
skin
irritations
comparable
to
sunburn,
etc.
I
have
interviewed
a
number
of persons
who
have
experienced skin-reddening
from
exposure
to
(visible)
radiations
near
UFOs.
Rene
Gilham,
of
Merom,
Indiana,
watched
a
UFO
hovering over
his
home
-area
on
the evening
of
Nov.
6, 1957,
and
received
mild skin
-burns,
for
example.
I
found
in
speaking with
him
that
the
symptoms
were
gone
in
a
matter
of days, with
no
after-effects.
The
witnesses
in
a
car.stopping
incident
at
Loch
Raven
Dam,
Md.,
on
the
night
of
Oct.
26, 1958,
who
were
close
to
a
brightly
luminous,
blimp
-sized
object after getting
out
of
their
stopped
car,
experienced
skin
-reddening for
which
they
obtained
medical
atten-
tion.
Without
citing
other
such
instances,
I
would say
that
these cases
are
not
suggestive
of
any
serious
hazard,
but they
warrant
scientific
attention.
3.
More
serious
physical
injuries
James
Flynn,
of
Ft.
Myers,
Fla.,
in
a
case that
has
been
rather well
checked
by
both
APRO
and
NICAP
investigators,
reportedly
suffered
unusual
injuries
and
physical
effects
when
he
sought
to
check
what
he had
taken
to
be
a
mal-
functioning
test
vehicle
from Cape
Canaveral
that
had
come
down
in
the Ever-
glades,
March
15,
1965.
I
have
spoken
with
Flynn
and
others
who
know
him and
believe
that
his
case deserved
much
more
than
the
superficial
official
attention
it
received
when
he
reported
it
to
proper
authorities.
He
was
hospitalized
for
about
a
week,
treated
for
a
deep
hemorrhage
of
one
eye
(without
medical
evidence
of
any
blow),
and
suffered loss
of
all
of the
principal
deep
-tendon
reflexes
for
a number
of days, according
to
his physician's
statement, published
by
APRO
(Ref.
45).
An
instance
of
more
than
mere
skin-reddening, associated
with
direct
contact
with
a
landed
unidentified object,
reportedly
occurred in
Hamilton,
Ontario,
March
29, 1966.
Charles Cozens, then
age
13,
stated
to
police
and
to reporters
(and
recounted to
me
in a
telephone interview
with
him and
his
father) that
he
had
seen
two
rather
small
whitish,
luminous
objects
come
down
in
an
open
field
in
Hamilton
that
evening.
He
moved
towards
them
out
of
curiosity,
and
states
that
he
finally
moved
right
up
beside
them,
and
touched the
surface
of
one
of
them
to see
what
it
felt
like.
It
was
not
hot,
and
seemed
unusually
smooth.
One
of the
two
small
(8
ft
by
4
ft
plan
form, 3-4
feet
high)
bun
-shaped
objects
had
a
projection
on one end
that the
boy thought might have
been
some
kind
of
antenna,
so
he
touched
it,
only
to
have
his
hand
flung
back as
a
spark shot
out
from
the
end
of the
projection into
the
air.
He
ran, thinking
first
to
go
to
anearby
police
substation.
But, on
looking over
his
shoulder
after getting
to the
edge
of the
field
and
seeing
no
objects there,
he
decided
the
police
might
not
believe
him and
ran
to his
home. His
parents, after discussing
the
incident
at
some
length
with the
frightened boy,
notified police,
which
is
how
the
incident
became
public
knowledge.
Two
others in
Hamilton
saw
that night seeminglysimilar
objects,
but
airborne rather
than on
the
ground. Cozens
was
treated for
a
burn
or sear
on
the
hand
that
had
been in contact
with the
projection
at the
moment
the spark
was
emitted.
On
questioning
both the
boy and
his father,
I
was
left
with the impression
that, despite
the unusual nature of the
report,
it
was
described
with both straightforwardness
and
concern
and
that
it
must
be
givenserious consideration. Clearly
one would
prefer
a number
of adult witnesses to
an
individual
boy;
yet
I
believe
the case
will
stand
close scrutiny.
There
are
a few
other
such
reports of
moderate
injury reportedly sustained
in direct physical contact with landed
aerial objects
for
which I do
not yet
feel
satisfied
with the
available degree of authentication.
It would be very
desirable to
conduct far
more
thorough
investigations
of
some
foreign cases of
this type, to
check the weight
of the evidence involved.
That
only
a
very small
number
of
such cases
is
on
record should be emphasized.