Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Debunking the Condon Report.


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 06 September 2009 - 01:26 PM

Debunking the Condon Report

Quote

"Our study would be conducted exclusively by "Non Believers". The trick would be ,I think,to describe the project so that to the public it would appear totally objective study.
Conclusion...There is no secrecy and no evidence that such objects even exist."

Memorandum from Robert Low - Project Administrator CONDON Report (Oct 1966 -Jan 1969) to Colorado University V.P. Thurston Marshall

Section II-Summary of the Study
Edward U. Condon:
http://www.ncas.org/...text/sec-ii.htm

Posted Image

Quote

The Condon Committee was the informal name of the University of Colorado UFO Project, a study of unidentified flying objects, undertaken at the University of Colorado from 1966 to 1968 under the direction of physicist Edward Condon.

The Condon Committee was instigated at the behest of the United States Air Force, which had studied UFOs since the 1940s. After examining many hundreds of UFO files from the Air Force’s Project Blue Book and from civilian UFO groups NICAP and APRO, the Committee selected 56 to analyze in detail for the purpose of deciding whether "analysis of new sightings may provide some additions to scientific knowledge of value to the Air Force" and "to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge".

The Report was reviewed by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, which endorsed its scope, conclusions and recommendations were generally welcomed by the scientific community, and have been cited as a decisive factor in the generally low levels of interest regarding UFOs among academics in subsequent years. Peter Sturrock writes that the report is "the most influential public document concerning the scientific status of this [UFO] problem. Hence, all current scientific work on the UFO problem must make reference to the Condon Report."
However, the report has faced much criticism as to its methodology and bias, from both investigators who worked on the project and others.
http://en.wikipedia....ondon_Committee


Some serious questions were raised about the objectivity (and active agenda) of the Condon Report -heres what Dr Mcdonald said about the Condon report in a talk presented to the Dupont Chapter of The Scientific Research Society of America in Delaware,1969.

Note: Dr James McDonald was the Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona:

Quote

Summary of a Talk Presented to the Dupont Chapter of The
Scientific Research Society of America (RESA), Wilmington,
Delaware, Feb. 12, 1969.
James E. McDonald
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

The Condon Report's negative conclusions and recommendations with respect to scientific study of UFOs are now a matter of public record. I dispute those conclusions, challenging and criticizing them on the following principal grounds:


*The report analyses only about ninety cases, a tiny fraction of the significant and scientifically puzzling UFO reports now on record.


*It omits consideration of some of the most puzzling cases on record, famous cases that persons such as myself specifically urged the Condon Project to study. It even omits discussion of certain significant cases that Project staff actually investigated (e.g. Levelland and Redlands).


*Many of those cases which the Report does consider are of such trivially insignificant nature that they should have been ignored on the grounds that they are unrelated to the Project's prime mission, namely, seeking explanations of the kinds of truly baffling cases that have created the Air Force problem that led to establishment of the Colorado UFO Project [i.e. Condon report].


*Specious argumentation, and argumentation of scientifically very weak nature, abound in the Report's case-analyses. And, while broadly charging bias on the part of those who have taken the UFO problem seriously in the past, the Report exhibits degrees of bias in the opposite direction that deserve the sharpest of criticism.


*To anyone intimately familiar with relevant report-details, some of the cases considered in the Report exhibit disturbingly incomplete presentation of relevant evidence; in a few instances, such defects seem little short of misrepresentation of case-information. However, I believe that the latter instances bespeak bias, not intent to deceive.


*Despite all of the above, those who prepared the Report ended up with about a dozen (i.e., about 15 per cent) of their cases in their "Unexplained" category. Some are extremely significant UFO cases (e.g., Texas B-47 or Lakenheath); yet these Unexplained UFOs appear to have been casually ignored by Condon in recommending that UFOs be considered of no further scientific significance.


*Irrelevant padding has thickened the report to a bulk that will discourage many scientists from studying it carefully. Detailed UFO report-analyses should have been the primary content of this Report, yet trivia and irrelevancies, or secondary material, are present in objectionably voluminous proportions.


*The Report, it must be noted, does exhibit a few bright facets; but these are obscured by its high average defect-density.


*In all, I believe that the contents of the Condon Report fail dismally to support the strong negative recommendations which Condon has presented in his own summary analysis. The strong endorsement by the National Academy of Sciences will, I believe, prove to be a painful embarrassment to the Academy, for it appears to be the epitome of superficial panel-evaluation by representatives of a scientific body that ought always to warrant the prestige its good name enjoys.



My own estimate is that absolutely no further general progress towards scientific clarification of the UFO problem will come until the inadequacies of the Condon Report are fully aired in as many ways as possible. I intend to devote all possible personal effort to that objective; and NICAP is in process of preparing an extended rebuttal report. So small a fraction of the scientific community is currently aware of the potential scientific importance of the UFO problem that this rebuttal will probably be slow in taking effect; but the Report seems so unrepresentative of good scientific work, so highly vulnerable to scientific criticism, that I believe its negative influence (except with respect to USAF decisions about Project Blue Book) will be quite short-lived.
http://www.ufologie....htm/science.htm


Other major discrepencies:


Quote

* Condon Did Not Investigate Cases -Dr. Condon, although he is named in the Air Force contract as the project's principal investigator, did not make a single field investigation. Nor did he interview even one of the hundreds of pilots, astronomers, aerospace engineers, control tower operators, and other highly competent witnesses sent to him by NICAP at Colorado's request.


* Case material ignored -Large volumes of case material was apparently completely ignored,including the deaths of three Air Force pilots involved in UFO chases and a UFO encounter with an Air Force transport captain who said he believed they were "shot at."


* Use of ridicule -Dr. Condon stated that there should be no attack on the integrity of persons having different opinions on UFOs. Yet, he ridiculed UFO witnesses, well-informed scientists on the subject, and NICAP.


* Kook Cases Get Coverage -Dr. Condon takes up considerable space in the report discussing numerous hoaxes and "contactee" trips to Venus but did not include, in his sections, even one strong, responsible case from a good witness.


* Key Witnessess omitted -Among the omissions in the Condon report are the hundreds of detailed UFO sightings by reputable witnesses whose intelligence and credentials make examinations of their reports essential. Without an evaluation of these high-quality UFO cases any conclusions are meaningless.


* Pilots' Sighting Not Included -Reports by scientists were not the only category rejected by project investigators on the basis of their exclusion criteria. There was wholesale elimination of sightings by engineers and other technical personnel, including many airline pilots.


* Reports by Police ignored - Among the omissions are reports by police officers and sheriffs' deputies. In several cases, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials also figured in the reports, such as the one at Redmond, Ore.Other excluded cases in which police officers were involved are the well-known Socorro, N.M. report by Officer Lonnie Zamora, who observed a landed, egg-shaped object which left traces and the equally well-known police report of an 80-mile chase of a UFO from Portage County, Ohio, into Pennsylvania.


* Case Material/Significant Data Omitted - Another major defect of the Colorado Project was the meager use it made of the enormous reservoir of case material available to it. Over the 20 years preceding the project, between 10,000 and 15,000 UFO sighting reports had been recorded. Yet the report treats only 50 cases from this period, or 1/2 of 1% of the available material.


* Credible Witnesses Ignored -Hundreds of credible witnesses were therefore ignored because "they could not add anything new" to their original reports.


* Secrecy Denied -Dr. Condon denied in the report that there was any evidence of secrecy. NICAP gave him evidence of cases that were withheld, reports whose very existence was denied, and sightings whose conclusions were changed years later.


Condon on possible Air Force UFO secrecy:

"Maybe they are misleading us . . . I don't care much."
Rocky Mountain News, November 5, 1966.
http://www.cohenufo....nicapcondon.htm

....


#2    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 06 September 2009 - 01:31 PM

CIA Covert Involvement:


Interesting document which shows that Dr Condon was in cahoots with the CIA and ordered never to mention their involvement in his report:

Posted Image

Quote

Any work performed by the NPIC to assist Dr Condon in his investigation will not be identified as work accomplished by the CIA.
Dr condon was advised by Mr Lundhal to make no reference to CIA in regard to this work effort.



---

Condon fires investigator's for positive findings:

Quote

The Condon Report on UFOs
In 1966 the Air Force sponsored a project, directed by University of Colorado physicist Edward U. Condon, to conduct what was billed as an "independent" study. In fact it was part of an elaborate scheme to allow the Air Force, publicly anyway, to get out of the UFO business.­

Mary Evans Picture Library:
The official text of the controversial Condon Report, billed in 1969 as the last (and negative) word on UFOs.­The Condon committee was to review or reinvestigate Project Blue Book data and decide if further inve­stigation was warranted.
As an internal memorandum leaked to Look magazine in 1968 showed, Condon and his chief assistant knew before they started that they were to reach negative conclusions.

Condon sparked a fire storm of controversy when he summarily dismissed two investigators who, not having gotten the message, returned from the field with positive findings.
In January 1969, when the committee's final report was released in book form, readers who did not get past Condon's introduction were led to believe that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified on the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." Those who bothered to read the book found that fully one-third of the cases examined remained unexplained, and scientist-critics would later note that even some of the "explained" reports were unconvincingly accounted for.
But that did not matter; Condon arid his committee had done their job, and the Air Force closed down Project Blue Book at the end of the year.
http://science.howst...government7.htm


...


#3    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 06 September 2009 - 01:36 PM

Quote from AIAA:

Quote

The prestigious American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Professional society of the aerospace industry, stated:

"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from its content, namely that a phenomenon with such a high rate of unexplained cases (about 30%) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."


---


New Information on the Condon Committee

Quote

Thursday, September 11, 2008-
Two stunning new revelations have emerged from the collection of 1,200 pages of files copied by MUFON's Project Pandora from the files of the late Roy Craig, a physical chemist who was a key investigator for the University of Colorado's UFO study.
One, it turns out that late in the study a project scientist wrote a memo admitting that more than 50% of their cases had turned out to be unexplained. Two, proof has now been found that project director Edward Condon had not in fact read his own report before writing up the report's "Conclusions and Recommendations," the opening chapter in the front of the report.
http://www.ufocasebo...infocondon.html


---


What scientsts said about other 'government sanctioned' UFO studies:

Quote

"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at North Western University and scientific advisor to Project Bluebook from 1952-1969



"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
Senior Atmospherical Physicist Dr James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966



"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).



"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963



"Project Blue Book was ballyhooed by the Air Force as a full-fledged top-priority operation. It was no such thing. The staff, in a sense, was a joke. In terms of scientific training and numbers, it was highly inadequate to the task. And the methods used were positively archaic. And that is the crack operation that the general public believes looked adequately into the UFO phenomenon".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).



#4    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 06 September 2009 - 01:41 PM

Cartoon - Denver Post.

Quote

On December 17, 1969 the USAF shut down their UFO study program known as Blue book based on the conclusion of a study headed by Dr. Edward Condon at the University of Colorado who stated
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge".
Drawn by Pat Oliphant then with the Denver Post.


Posted Image
"Stay calm, Dr Condon--just tell them you don't believe in them!"

"Don't let this get out--it could just ruin our conclusions!"



#5    behaviour???

behaviour???

    Saru's Slave

  • Member
  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UAE

  • Its is when aspirations come in toe with destiny, are great men manifested

Posted 06 September 2009 - 01:50 PM

That definitely needs appreciation Karl :tu:
Thanks
B???

Posted Image


#6    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 06 September 2009 - 09:50 PM

B??? -thanks for the reply,it appears the Condon report may have been a bit of a whitewash. :yes:

If you've not seen it before then this link mentions the study and is quite a good read:
Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (pdf):
http://www.freedomof...ce_research.pdf
Cheers.


#7    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 07 September 2009 - 11:43 PM

I thought from the first that the Congdon Report was 'cooked' (I read it when it was released), but keep in mind that that may not have been because there was something there to hide but because the AF thought there was nothing there and wanted to get shed of the whole thing even if it took some cheating.


#8    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,684 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 10 September 2009 - 11:09 AM

View Postkarl 12, on 06 September 2009 - 09:50 PM, said:

B??? -thanks for the reply,it appears the Condon report may have been a bit of a whitewash. :yes:

If you've not seen it before then this link mentions the study and is quite a good read:
Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (pdf):
http://www.freedomof...ce_research.pdf
Cheers.

thanks karl..... great stuff

  :nw:


#9    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,573 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 September 2009 - 11:17 AM

So...has the study of UFO's added anything to the field of scientific knowledge in the past...during it's existence?


#10    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,684 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 10 September 2009 - 11:19 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 10 September 2009 - 11:17 AM, said:

So...has the study of UFO's added anything to the field of scientific knowledge in the past...during it's existence?

i guess so...... after all a lot has been developed under 'reverse engineering'  :blink:


#11    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 22 September 2009 - 04:31 PM

Extract from "UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong - The inside story by an ex-member of the official study group", book by Dr. David Saunders:

Quote

Before it was over I had worked out a comprehensive scheme of coding, and some 7,500 reports were processed - I was shooting for the 10,000 mark to provide a good basis for statistical analysis. However, even when we had only a few hundred reports coded and collated in the "Sighting Catalog" it was possible to see some interesting differences in the quality of reports arriving from different sources, and it was even more interesting to consider these in the light of the question network that might have been used to screen out fake UFOs.

For example, a very basic question is the duration of a sighting. Very brief sightings are apt to be meteors or jet aircraft, and even if they are UFOS, they are unlikely to contribute much information. Very extended sightings are most apt to be balloons (in the daytime) or astronomical objects (at night). Therefore, there is an optimal duration for a UFO sighting, about five to fifteen minutes - long enough to observe something worth reporting, but not too long. When I made distributions of the durations associated with Blue Book and NICAP reports, since these were then our only sources of routine "unselected" reports, I was struck by the difference in the distributions. Blue Book had a much higher proportion of extremely short durations and also a noticeably higher proportion of extremely long durations, suggesting that they were dealing with a potentially more explainable collection of reports. NICAP'S reports included a much higher proportion in the middle range of durations that would interest us. Had I then been in a position to make comparisons based on other relevant features of the reports - for example, reported colors, time of day, apparent size, number of details - I am sure similar patterns would have emerged.

What I did do next was to go through the computer listings to see what proportion of the current reports were coming to us by way of more than one channel The result of this exercise did much to explain the results of the previous one. The only sightings that we heard about from both Blue Book and NICAP were sightings that had achieved enough publicity for us to have heard about them also from still other sources - either press notices or telephone calls. Except for the overlap created by this relatively small number of notorious cases, the Blue Book and NICAP samples were completely different.
http://www.ufologie....io/saunders.htm


#12    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,102 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 22 September 2009 - 04:50 PM

That should be no surprise to anyone.  After all, the CIA does lots of secret stuff.  During the Cold War, UFO reports were investigated by the CIA because there might have been new secret Soviet reconnaissance air craft flying about.  The KGB was similarly involved in the USSR.  It was a touchy time for spooks on both sides.  It does not make them ET or even more real.

Edited by sinewave, 22 September 2009 - 04:51 PM.


#13    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 01 October 2009 - 03:30 PM

View Postsinewave, on 22 September 2009 - 04:50 PM, said:

That should be no surprise to anyone.  After all, the CIA does lots of secret stuff.  During the Cold War, UFO reports were investigated by the CIA because there might have been new secret Soviet reconnaissance air craft flying about.  The KGB was similarly involved in the USSR.  It was a touchy time for spooks on both sides.  It does not make them ET or even more real.

Sinewave - with respect,I think you have absolutley no idea what you're talking about.
Do you even know what the Condon report was?
Have you even bothered to click any of the links or educate yourself about some of the case histories?
http://www.cohenufo....nicapcondon.htm
Just making flippantly dismissive statements like the one above doesn't realy help (or address) anything.

I'm not saying you're 'wilfully ignorant' - just maybe actualy look into a subject before commenting upon it.


#14    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,463 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 02 October 2009 - 04:24 AM

View Postkarl 12, on 06 September 2009 - 01:36 PM, said:

Quote from AIAA:

"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963
-


I have saying for rmany years that the Air Force has been deliberately misleading the public on UFOs and the above message simply confirms what I have been asserting for all of these years.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 October 2009 - 04:27 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#15    Captain Zim

Captain Zim

    A voice in the silence

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined:07 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johannesburg

Posted 02 October 2009 - 05:52 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 10 September 2009 - 11:17 AM, said:

So...has the study of UFO's added anything to the field of scientific knowledge in the past...during it's existence?

Absolutely. It has certainly stimulated interest in extraterrestrial life, if nothing else. Look at the current intense scientific research going on on finding exoplanets, exploring the solar system and searching for life. It has also prompted people to examine possible new technologies such as anti-gravity. Even if the research is to naught, it is research, and even a null result is a result.

Consider... what is ball lightning but a UFO? And what scientific advances might that yield?

“I consider it an extremely dangerous doctrine, because the more likely we are to assume that the solution comes from the outside, the less likely we are to solve our problems ourselves.”


-Carl Sagan





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users