(The biography of Dr. Baker, Jr., is as follows:)
Dr. Baker is a 36 year old scientist who received his BA with Highest Honors in Physics and Mathematics at UCLA in , and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In he was granted a MA in Physics, and was the recipient of the UCLA Physics Prize. In Dr. Baker received a PhD in Engineering, which was the first of its kind to be granted in the nation with a specialty in Astronautics.
With respect to his academic background. Dr. Baker was on the Faculty of the Department of Astronomy at UCLA from to . Since that time he has been on the Faculty of the Department of Engineering at UCLA where he currently offers courses in astronautics, fluid mechanics, and structural mechanics.
Dr. Baker is an internationally recognized expert in various fields of science and engineering. He was a research contributor to .the development of preliminary orbit determination procedures utilizing radar data, astrodynamic constants, near free-molecular flow drag — all utilized in the nation's space programs. He has also developed unique theories in the area of hydrofoil marine craft design.
In private industry Dr. Baker has initiated, supervised, and conducted research programs in astronautics, physics, fluid mechanics, mathematics, and computer program design. He has contributed to problem definition and analysis of scientific and engineering problems in both industrial and military projects.
Dr. Baker's industrial career began in as a consultant to Douglas Aircraft Company. Between and he was a Senior Scientist at Aeronutronic-Philco-Ford. While in the Air Force during and , he was a project officer on a number of classified Air Force projects. Between and he was the head of Lockheed's Astrodynamics Research Center, where he directed the efforts of approximately 25 scientists in various scientific areas. In Dr. Baker joined the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), first as Associate Manager for Research and Analysis, and later as the Senior Scientist of CSC's System Sciences subdivision. In this latter capacity he is currently involved in several Air Force, Navy, and NASA projects.
Dr. Baker represented the United States Air Force at the International Astronautical Federation meeting in Stockholm (Sweden) in , represented the United States at the International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics European Conferences in and in and was an invitee to the Astronomical Councile [sic] of the Academy of Sciences of USSR in Moscow in . He was voted an Outstanding Young Man of the Year by the Junior Chamber of Commerce in . From to he was the National Chairman of the Astrodynamics Technical Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and is currently a member of Computer Sciences Technical Committee.
Dr. Baker has been the Editor of the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences since . He was the joint editor of the Proceedings of the International Astronautical Federation Congress and the senior author of the first textbook on astrodynamics: An Introduction to Astrodynamics published in . Dr. Baker is the author of four books and over 70 technical papers (see Appendix 2).
Dr. Baker's professional society memberships include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, Sigma Pi Sigma, American Astronautical Society (Fellow), British Interplanetary Society (Fellow), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Associate Fellow and member of the Computer Sciences Technical Committee), British Astronomical Society (Fellow), American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, and Meteoritical Society.
His active security clearance is top secret.
Dr. Baker. Fine, thank you, Mr. Roush.
I should like to preface my remarks by stating my preference for the term "anomalistic observational phenomena," as opposed to the term "unidentified flying objects."
Mr. Roush. I observed you were going to say that and I wonder about some of my Hoosiers back home using those terms.
Dr. Baker. It comes trippingly off the tongue.
Mr. Roush. It might not only cause some Hoosiers but some laymen some problems. It might be easier to say UFO's. You may go ahead.
Dr. Baker. I call it AOP.
From the data that I have reviewed and analyzed since , it is my belief that there does exist substantial evidence to support the claim that an unexplained phenomenon — or phenomena — is present in the environs of the earth, but that it may not be "flying," may not always be "unidentified," and, perhaps, may not even be substantive "objects." In the following statement I will --
Several appendices accompany this report. The first two are in response to Congressman Roush's invitational letter of , and consist of my biographical sketch and a listing of my bibliography, respectively. The third appendix relates directly to my specific recommendations, and was included with the kind permission of Dr. Sydney Walker III. The fourth appendix presents three reprints of articles (Baker (1968a) and (1968b) and Walker (1968)) that are pertinent to the subject matter of this report.
My initial contact with anomalistic observational phenomena — AOP — came in when I was a consultant to Douglas Aircraft Co. in Santa Monica, Calif., serving as special assistant to Dr. W. B. Klemperer, director of Douglas' research staff. The data consisted of two short film clips: one taken in Montana — termed by us as the Montana film — and one taken in Utah — called by us the Utah film. These films were provided to us by the Air Technical Intelligence Center — ATIC, now the Foreign Technology Division — FTD — at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; 35-millimeter prints were furnished by Green-Rouse Productions of Samuel Goldwyn Studios.
Both films had been taken by apparently reliable and unbiased men using amateur movie cameras and, in each case, there was a credible, substantiating witness present. The films exhibited the motion of rather fuzzy white dots, but the Montana film was remarkable in that foreground was visible on most of the frames.
Preliminary analysis excluded most natural phenomena. More detailed study indicated that the only remaining natural phenomenon candidate for the Utah film was birds in flight, and for the Montana film it was airplane fuselage reflections of the sun. After about 18 months of rather detailed, albeit not continuous, study using various film-measuring equipments [sic] at Douglas and at UCLA, as well as analysis of a photogrammetric experiment, it appeared that neither of these hypothesized natural phenomena explanations had merit, and a report was published by me (Baker (1956)) and forwarded to Brig. Gen. Harold E. Watson, commander, ATIC. Since the description of the circumstances of the filmings and the analyses of the data provided on the films is rather lengthy, and have since been published in the open literature n1[For the Utah film, see Baker and Makemson (1967): for the Montana film, see Baker (1968a). This latter reference is included in app. 4 to this paper.], it does not seem unreasonable to repeat the analyses here. [NCAS Editor's note: This last sentence appears to be a mis-transcription; the two analyses were not presented in Dr. Baker's statement.]
During the course of this study we also had the opportunity to view some gun-camera photographs taken over Florida. Unfortunately, we could not retain this film, and did not have time available to accomplish a comprehensive analysis. Like the Montana and Utah films, this film also exhibited only white-dot images; however, since a foreground was present, a competent study could have been carried out. Dr. Klemperer and I agreed on the preliminary conclusion — not supported by detailed analyses — that, again, no natural phenomenon was a likely source for the images.
In I received a movie film clip from a Mr. Richard Hall that had purportedly been taken from an aircraft (DC-3) near Angel Falls, Venezuela, at about 12:15 p.m. This film clip was 8-millimeter color film, exposed at 16 frames per second and showed a very bright yellow, slightly pear-shaped object that disappeared in a cloud bank after about 60 or 70 frames. At the time I was the head of the Lockheed Aircraft Co.'s Astrodynamics Research Center. We had developed a small group of photogrammetrists consisting of Dr. P. M. Merifeld and Mr. James Rammelkamp, and were able to undertake a study of the film. Initially, Merifeld and Rammelkamp found little of interest on the film. After their preliminary examination, I expended considerable effort in further analysis. Again, I was only able to draw the conclusion that the yellow object was no known natural phenomenon; but [before] we could make a quantitative determination of angular rates and accelerations, and the bounds of distance, linear velocity, and acceleration, the film was lost (except for a microphotograph exhibiting the object on one frame). There was, however, no question in my mind as to the anomalistic character of the images.
In , Mr. Zan Overall showed me three cinetheodolite films which had been taken simultaneously by three different cameras of a Thor-Able Star launching at Vandenberg AFB (project A4/01019). These films depicted a white object moving vertically (relative to the film frame) against a clear, blue-sky background. The object was about as bright as the booster's second-stage exhaust, and passed the booster at about one-third degree per second. Rough estimates of the direction of the Sun — based on shadows on early frames — and the winds aloft — indicated by the motion of the rocket's exhaust plume) — were made. These, together with the brightness of the object and its rate of ascent, seemed to rule out balloons, airplanes, lens flare, mirages, et cetera. Since one of the cinetheodolites was at a site some distance from the other two, a parallax determination of the actual distance and speed of the object could be determined rather easily. Because the films were on loan from the Navy, I was unable to carry out the necessary study and a determination of the precise character of the phenomenon (natural or anomalistic) could not be made. In 1967, I discussed the matter with Prof. William K. Hartmann of the University of Arizona, and Prof. Roy Craig of the University of Colorado. At that time, they were involved in the Colorado UFO Study Group, and indicated that they would attempt to obtain the film for further analysis. Although I am confident that they made a conscientious effort to obtain the films, apparently they were unsuccessful (as of 6 months ago, at least).
In addition to the foregoing film clips — which seemed to involve data that were the result of anomalistic phenomena — the Montana film in my opinion, certainly was anomalistic and all of the other films except for the California film, most probably were anomalistic — I have also had the opportunity to view approximately a half dozen other films, purportedly of "UFO's." The images on these films appeared possibly to be the result of natural phenomena, such as reflections on airplanes, atmospheric mirages, optical flares, birds, balloons, insects, satellites, et cetera. For example, a recent () set of two films were taken, using professional motion picture equipment, by a Universal Studio crew on location. Although rather peculiar in appearance, the objects thus photographed could have conceivably been the result of airplane reflections.
To this date my analyses of anomalistic motion picture data have been rather ungratifying. Although I am convinced that many of the films indeed demonstrated the presence of anomalistic phenomena, they all have the characteristic or rather ill-defined blobs of light, and one can actually gain little insight into the real character of the phenomena. For example, linear distance, speed, and acceleration cannot be determined precisely, nor can size and mass. As I will discuss in a moment, this situation is not particularly surprising, since, without a special-purpose sensor system expressly designed to obtain information pertinent to anomalistic observational phenomena, or a general-purpose sensor system operated so as not to disregard such data, the chance for obtaining high-quality hard data is quite small.
The capabilities of astronomical optical sensors have been dealt with in a thorough fashion by Page in 1968. The Prairie Network for
Meteor Observations is a good example of a wide-coverage
optical system, but as is so often the case, and as Page (1968) pointed out. *** K E. McCrosky of the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory informed me that no thorough search (for anomalistic data) has been carried out.
Even so, some astronomical photographs are bound to exhibit anomalistic data. Again quoting from Page
(1968), *** W. T. Powers of Northwestern University Astronomy Department
informed me that 'several' of the Smithsonian-net photographs show anomalous trails.
As I have already pointed
out (Baker (1968b) to be found in appendix 4), the majority of our astronomical equipment (e.g., conventional
photographic telescopes, Baker-Nunn cameras, meteor cameras, Markowitz Dual-Rate Moon Cameras, et cetera) are
special purpose in nature, and would probably not detect the anomalous luminous phenomena reported by the casual
observer if they were indeed present. Their photographic speed, field of view, et cetera, impose severe
restrictions on their ability to collect data on objects other than those they have been specifically designed to
detect As already noted in the quotes from Page (1968), even if such data were collected, the recognition of their
uniqueness or anomalous character by an experimenter is improbable. Examples abound, in the history of celestial
mechanics, of minor planets being detected on old astronomical plates that had been measured for other purposes,
and then abandoned.
Our radar and optical space surveillance and tracking systems are even more restrictive and thus, even less likely to provide information on anomalistic phenomena than are astronomical sensors. The Signal Test Processing Facility (STPF) radar at Floyd, N.Y. is a high-performance experimental radar having a one-third degree beam width. For lockon and track, an object would have to be pinpointed to one-sixth degree, and even if the radar did achieve lockon, an erratically moving object could not be followed even in the STPF radar's monopulse mode of operation. For this reason only satellites having rather well-defined paths (i.e., ephemerides), which have been precomputed, can be acquired and tracked.
Our three BMEWS radars propagate fans of electromagnetic energy into space. If a ballistic missile or satellite penetrates two of these fans successively, then it can be identified. Since astrodynamical laws govern the time interval between detection fan penetrations for "normal" space objects, all other anomalistic "hits" by the radar are usually neglected, and even if they are not neglected, they are usually classified as spurious images or misassociated targets, and are stored away on magnetic tape, and forgotten.
One space surveillance site operates a detection radar (FPS-17) and a tracking radar (FPS-79). If a new space object is sensed by the detection radar's fans, then the tracking radar can be oriented to achieve lockon. The orientation is governed by a knowledge of the appropriate "normal" object's astrodynamic laws of motion, or by an assumption as to launch point. Thus, if an unknown is detected, and if it follows an unusual path, it is unlikely that it could, or would, be tracked. Furthermore, the director of the radar may make a decision that the unknown object detected is not of interest (because of the location of the FPS-17 fan penetration or because of the lack of prior information on a possible new launch). In the absence of detection fan penetration (the fan has a rather limited coverage), the FPS-79 tracking radar is tasked to follow other space objects on a schedule provided by the Space Defense Center, and again there is almost no likelihood that an anomalistic object could, or would, be tracked.
The NASA radars, such as those at Millstone and Goldstone, are not intended to be surveillance radars, and only track known space objects on command. Again the chances of their tracking anomalistic objects are nearly nil. The new phased-array radar at Eglin AFB (FPS-85) has considerable capability for deploying detection fans and tracking space objects in a simultaneous fashion. Such versatility raises certain energy-management problems — that is, determining how much energy to allocate to detection and how much to tracking — but this sensor might have a capability (albeit, perhaps, limited) to detect and track anomalistic objects. The problem is that the logic included in the software associated with the FPS-85's control computers is not organized in a fashion to detect and track anomalistic objects (I will indicate in a moment how the logic could be modified). Furthermore, the FPS-85, like the other surveillance radars is usually tasked to track a list of catalogued space objects in the Space Defense Center's data base and the opportunity to "look around" for anomalistic objects is quite limited.
There are a number of other radar surveillance systems such as a detection fence across the United States. In the
case of this fence, we have a situation similar to BMEWS, in which the time interval between successive
penetrations (in this case separated by an orbital period for satellites) must follow prescribed astrodynamical
laws. If they do not, then the fence penetrations are either deleted from the data base or classified as unknowns
or uncorrelated targets
, filed, and forgotten.
There is only one surveillance system, known to me, that exhibits sufficient and continuous coverage to have even a slight opportunity of betraying the presence of anomalistic phenomena operating above the Earth's atmosphere. The system is partially classified and, hence, I cannot go into great detail at an unclassified meeting. I can, however, state that yesterday (July 28, 1968) I traveled to Colorado Springs (location of the Air Defense Command) and confirmed that since this particular sensor system has been in operation, there have been a number of anomalistic alarms. Alarms that, as of this date, have not been explained on the basis of natural phenomena interference, equipment malfunction or inadequacy, or manmade space objects.
In Baker and Makemson (1967), I discussed the usual candidates for the
natural sources of anomalistic observations. For example, some scanning radars — such as airport radars — pick up anomalistic returns termed angels
.
A variety of explanations have been proposed, variously involving ionized air inversion layers, etc. (see Tacker
(1960) and even insects (see Glover, et al. (1966)). With respect to human observation of anomalistic luminous
phenomena, some rather strong positions have been taken by such authorities as Menzel (1953), who feels that the predominant natural phenomenon is atmospheric
mirages; by Klass (1958a), who feels that the predominant natural phenomenon
is related to ball lightning triggered by
high-tension line coronal discharge, jet aircraft, electrical storms, etc.; by Robey (1960), who feels that the
observations are of cometoids
entering the earth's
atmosphere, etc. The list of hypothetical sources for anomalistic observational phenomena is long indeed, but from
the photographic data that I have personally analyzed, I am convinced that none of these explanations is
valid.
The analyses that I have carried out to date have dealt with observational evidence that I term "hard data" — that is, permanent photographic data. Although I will not discuss in detail the analyses of eyewitness reports (which I term "soft data") n2[Except in app. 3 to this report -- a paper supplied by Dr. Sydney Walker III, concerning a hypothetical case.], Powers (1967), McDonald (1967), Hynek (1966), and others have concluded that overwhelming evidence exists that a truly anomalistic phenomenon is present.
Of course, there are numerous others who have come to a completely opposite conclusion; in fact, it becomes almost a matter of personal preference: it is possible for one to identify all of the anomalistic data as very unusual manifestations of natural phenomena. No matter how unlikely it is, anything is possible — even a jet plane reflecting the sun in direct opposition to the laws of optics. I'm sometimes reminded of the flat earth debates that I organized 10 years ago in my elementary astronomy courses at UCLA. Some students became so involved in justifying their positions — either flat or spherical — that they would grasp at even the most improbable argument in order to rationalize their stand.
Mr. Roush. Dr. Baker, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm going to have a brief recess here.
Dr. Baker. Certainly.
Mr. Roush. There is a motion to recommit the military construction bill, and I would like to vote on it. None of my colleagues are here right now, so we will declare a very brief recess, and I shall return as quickly as I can.
(Whereupon a short recess was taken for a floor vote.)
Mr. Roush. The committee will be in order.
Dr Baker, you may proceed.
Dr. Baker. Thank you.
Personally, I feel that it is premature for me to agree that the hard and soft data forces the scientific community to give overriding attention to the hypothesis that the anomalistic observations arise from manifestations of extraterrestrial beings. On the other hand, I strongly advocate the establishment of a research program in the area of anomalistic phenomena -- an interdisciplinary research effort that progresses according to the highest scientific standards; that is well funded; and that is planned to be reliably long term. The potential benefit of such a research project to science should not hinge solely on the detection of intelligent extraterrestrial life; it should be justified by the possibility of gaining new insights into poorly understood phenomena, such as ball lightning, cometoid impact, and spiraling meteorite decay.
There is practical value in such research for the Military Establishment, as well. Let us suppose that something similar to the "Tunguska event" of occurred today, and that it was Long Island in the United States, rather than the Podkamenaia Tunguska River Basin in Siberia that was devastated by a probable comet impact. Would we misinterpret this catastrophic event as the signal for world war III? What if another "fireball procession," such as occurred over Canada on February 9, 1913, repeated itself today, and the low-flying meteors were on nearly polar orbits that would overfly the continental United States. Would we interpret the resulting surveillance data as indicating that a fractional orbital bombardment system (FOBS) had been initiated in Russia? My knowledge of our Air Force sensors, both current and projected (see Baker and Ford (1968)), indicates that they are sufficiently sophisticated so that they would probably not react prematurely and signal a false alarm — although a careful study of this point should be made. On the other hand, there may exist other anomalistic sources of data that might give rise to a false alarm and perhaps provoke us either to deploy our countermeasures, or even to counterattack.
Before I enumerate the specific benefits this research might confer upon various scientific disciplines, allow me to digress briefly on the subject of soft data. The primary reason that I have avoided the introduction of soft data into my photographic studies and have not involved myself in the analysis of eyewitness reports (such as the excellent ones given by Fuller (1966)), is that I have been unable to develop a rational basis for determining the credibility level for any given human observer. Although they lie outside the field of my own scientific competence, I feel that credibility evaluations of witnesses would form an important adjunct to any serious study of anomalistic phenomena (see Walker (1968) included in app. 4 of this report). The soft data must involve some useful information content, and it would be extremely unrealistic to neglect it entirely. For this reason, I have included appendix 3 by Dr. Walker, which presents a logical procedure for establishing a credibility level for observers. Walker's report of a hypothetical case integrates the results of general medical, neuroopthalmologic, neurologic, and psychiatric evaluations, and develops a logical basis for assigning an overall credibility score.
Dr. Robert L. Hall is, of course, eminently qualified to comment on the question of eyewitness testimony at this seminar.
If serious studies can be initiated, with the objectives of detecting, analyzing, and identifying the sources of anomalistic observational phenomena, then I feel that the following scientific benefits can be expected:
Would it not be possible to get some scraps of these ("UFO") objects for examination? For instance, a scrap of matter, however small, could be analyzed for the kind of alloys in terrestrial foundries.I concur with O'Keefe's remarks, and if there exist "landings" associated with the anomalistic phenomena, then a prompt and extremely thorough investigation of the landing site must be accomplished before geological/material evidence is dispersed or terrestrialized.
A piece of a screw, however small, would be either English, Metric, or Martian. I am impressed by this because I looked at some tens of thousands of pictures of the Moon and found that the very small amount of chemical data has more weight in interpreting the past history of the Moon than the very large amount of optical data. It doesn't seem possible that objects ("flying saucers") of this size can visit the Earth and then depart, leaving nothing, not even a speck, behind. We could analyze a speck no bigger than a pinhead very easily.
If conditions -- all of the conditions -- needed to create plasma-UFO's near high-tension lines or in the wake of jet aircraft occurred readily we should have millions of UFO reports and the mystery would have been solved long ago. But the comparative rarity of legitimate UFO sightings clearly indicates that the ball-lightning related phenomenon is a very rare one.Even if ball lightning is not the primary source of anomalistic data (and I am not at present convinced that it is), any program investigating anomalistic observational phenomena would surely shed significant light on the ball-lightning problem.
*** if there are flying saucers around, why don't they contact us directly? *** I would if I were investigating another civilization. Such comments are made on extremely thin ice, for, to my knowledge, no concerted study has been carried out in the area of forecasting the social characteristics of an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Philosophers, social scientists, and others usually undertake studies of rather theoretical problems. (See Wooldridge (1968) and Minas and Ackoff (1964). If only a quantitative index or indices of social advancement could be developed that, say, would differentiate us from the Romans in our interpersonal and intersociety relationships (for example, tendencies toward fewer crimes of violence, fewer wars, etc.), then we might be better equipped to make rational extrapolations from our own to an advanced society. In fact, such as index, if it could be developed might even be beneficial in guiding our existing earth-based society.
For the past 16 years I have seriously (albeit sporadically) followed the analyses of "UFO" or "flying saucer" reports — both scientific and quasi-scientific. It is my conclusion that there is only so much quantitative data that we can squeeze out of vast amounts of data on anomalistic observational phenomena that has been collected to date. I believe that we will simply frustrate ourselves by endless arguments over past, incomplete data scenarios; what we need is more sophisticated analyses of fresh anomalistic observational data. We must come up with more than just a rehash of old data.
I emphasize that it is very unlikely that existing optical and radar monitoring systems would collect the type of quantitative data that is required to identify and study the phenomena. Moreover, we currently have no quantitative basis upon which to evaluate and rank (according to credibility) the myriad of eyewitness reports. Thus continuing to "massage" past anomalistic events would seem to be a waste of our scientific resources. In balance, then, I conclude that:
In the light of these conclusions, I will make the following recommendations:
All of the foregoing recommendations involve the expenditure of funds, and we are all well aware of the severe limitations on the funding of research today. On the other hand, I feel that one of the traps that we have fallen into, so far, is reliance on quick-look, undermanned and underfunded programs to investigate a tremendous quantity of often ambiguous data. I would discourage such programs as being diversionary, in regard to the overall scientific goal.
The goal of understanding anomalistic phenomena, if attained, may be of unprecedented importance to the human race. We must get a positive scientific program off the ground; a program that progresses according to the highest scientific standards, has specific objectives, is well funded, and long term.
Thank you.