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.

21
Turning to some of the highlights of my interviewing experience,
I first mention the "ridicule lid." We are not dealing with publicity
seekers. We are not, and I here concur with Dr. Hynek's remarks,
we are not dealing with religiosity and cultism. Those persons aren't
really the least bit interested in observations. They have firm convic-
tions entirely independent of observations. They do not cause noise
that disturbs the real signal at all.
General Samford of the Air Force put it well, 16 years ago.
General Samford, then Director of Intelligence, said, and I would
concur 100 percent, "Credible observers are observing relatively in-
credible objects." That was said 16 years ago, and it is still occurring.
I will touch in a moment or two on a sighting in Mr. Pettis' district
that very well illustrates that, a sighting this year in Redlands, Calif.,
which I think Dr. Harder may be able to tell still more about.
Another characteristic in interviewing the witnesses is the tendency
ifor the UFO witness to turn first not to the hypothesis that he s
looking at a spaceship, but rather it must be an ambulance out there
with a blinking red light or that it is a helicopter up there. There is
a conventional interpretation considered first; only then does the
witness get out of the car or patrol car and realize the thing is stopped
in midair and is going backwards and has six bright lights, or some-
thing like that. Only after an economical first hypothesis does the
witness, in these impressive cases, go further in his hypotheses, and
finally realize he is looking at something he has never seen before.
I like Dr. Hynek's phrase for this, "escalation of hypotheses." This
tendency to take a simple guess first and then upgrade it is so char-
acteristic that I emphasize it as a very important point.
Then, looking at the negative side, all of us who have checked
cases are sometimes in near anguish at the typical inability of the
scientifically untrained person to estimate angles, to even understand
what you are asking for when you ask for an angular estimation.
We are all aware of the gross errors in distances, heights, and speeds
so estimated.
And I would emphasize to those who cite jury trial experience that
the tendency for a group of witnesses to an accident to come in with
quite different accounts, must not be overstressed here. Those wit-
nesses don't come in from, say, a street corner accident and claim they
saw a giraffe killed by a tiger. They talk about an accident. They are
confused about details. There is legally confusing difference of timing
and distance, and so on; but all are in agreement that it was an auto •
accident.
So also when you deal with multiple-witness cases in UFO sight-
ings. There is an impressive core of consistency; everybody is talking
about an object that has no wings, all of 10 people may say it was
dome shaped or something like that, and then there are minor dif-
ferences as to how big they thought it was, how far away, and so on.
Those latter variations do pose a very real problem. It stands as a
negative factor with respect to the anecdotal data, but it does not
mean we are not dealing with real sightings of real objects.
Then there is the very real but not terribly serious problem of the
hoaxers, fabricators, liars, and so on. You do encounter cases from
time to time where you end up thinking, well, this person has some