From krowell@agora.uucp (Keith Rowell) Fri Sep 27 15:24:42 1991 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!iWarp.intel.com!ichips!intelhf!agora!krowell From: krowell@agora.uucp (Keith Rowell) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors Subject: Re: Request for info Keywords: Periodicals, conferences Message-ID: <1991Sep27.192442.17085@agora.uucp> Date: 27 Sep 91 19:24:42 GMT References: <9+kc1jb@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Sep25.174936.10465@agora.uucp> Distribution: usa Organization: Open Communications Forum Lines: 139 In article ldoering@engin.umich.edu (Laurence Doering) writes: >In article <1991Sep25.174936.10465@agora.uucp> krowell@agora.uucp (Keith Rowell) writes: >>[in his bibliography of UFO literature] >> >>Condon, Edward U. and Daniel S. Gillmor (ed.). Final Report of >>the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Conducted by >>the University of Colorado Under Contract to the United States >>Air Force). New York: Bantam Books, 1968. 965pp. After close, >>competent study of over 100 UFO sighting reports, 30% couldn't be >>identified! Read Condon's prejudiced introduction only after you >>have looked through the rest of the study. The National Academy >>of Sciences rubber-stamped Condon's recommendations that no >>public funds be devoted to the study of UFOs. >> >(Disclaimer: I don't have a copy of this book with me, so my comments >are based on my having read it several years ago.) > >You're correct that Condon et al. were proceeding from the initial >assumption that the great majority of UFO reports could be explained >as ordinary (or unusual) events that were not understood by the observers. >(I assume this is what you mean when you refer to the "prejudiced" >introduction.) No, Condon's "Conclusions and Recommendations" and "Summary of the Study" don't accurately reflect the contents of the study. The reason for this is that Condon was grossly prejudiced against giving the UFO a fair and complete examination. See the book by David Saunders for documentation of this. A letter to the editor of the pro-UFO International UFO Reporter of the Center for UFO Studies by Dr. Thornton Page documents further prejudice against honest treatment of the UFO by Condon. Page is *not* a pro-UFO scientist or researcher. He said, "I have just read Richard Sigismond's 'Confrontation with Dr. Condon' in the Sept.-Oct. issue of the International UFO Reporter. I would like to submit the following addendum: two more confrontations. Like Condon, I started with the conviction that UFOs were 'nonsense' when I served on the CIA Robertson Committee in 1953. But after that I came to see that a small fraction of UFO reports were very difficult to explain. At Wesleyan University in Connecticut, I offered a course on UFOs which attracted many undergraduates, and taught them some astronomy. Then, in 1968, Carl Sagan and I organized the AAAS Symposium on UFOs to be held in Boston December, 1969. Condon did everything he could to prevent this meeting... Somewhat later, I was asked to write the article on UFOs for the Encyclopedia Britannica. After preparing a draft, I phoned Condon to check whether I had fully covered the data collected by his committee. This was the final confrontation. He shouted at me that he should write the article; then there was a bang, and silence...." >The main point of the book is that UFOs are just that - >unidentified flying objects, and that most people don't have the experience >or knowledge to identify things they see in the sky. This conclusion was well known at the time by UFO "enthusiasts" and the few scientists like James McDonald who decided to risk their reputations by vociferously advocating a serious, longterm look at the UFO problem. The fuss is all about the 5 to 10 percent of very difficult to identify sightings as Thorton Page (quoted above) realized. Allan Hendry's book, published ten years later, amply documents the fact that there has always been a stubborn 5 to 10 percent of UFO reports that could not be identified *even though there was plenty of high quality data.* Stanton Friedman constantly tries to make the point that the better the data, the more the 5 to 10 percent remains unknown. It's very curious the Colorado team ended up with a whopping 30% unexplained; perhaps it was due to their lack of experience. A quote from Dr. Peter Sturrock's evaluation may explain why. From SUIPR Report No. 599 (Stanford University Institute for Plasma Research) "Evaluation of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project" October 1974: >From the Abstract: "The 'Condon Report', presenting the findings of the Colorado Project on a scientific study of unidentified flying objects, has been the most influential document concerning the scientific status of this problem. The present evaluation of this Report contains an overview, an analysis of evidence by categories, and a discussion of scientific methodology. The overview shows that most case studies were conducted by junior staff; the senior staff took little part and the Director took no part in these investigations. The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are substantial and significant differences between the findings of the Project staff and those which the Director attributes to the Project. Although both the Director and the staff are cautious in stating conclusions, the staff tend to emphasize challenging cases and unanswered questions, whereas the Director emphasizes the difficulty of further study and the probability that there is no scientific knowledge to be reaped...." >While it's true that the investigators were unable to explain around 30% >of the reports, the book clearly states that the cases they were unable >to assign a cause to were cases where there was little evidence (typically >one or two people driving at night, reporting that they saw a bright light >over the road that approached their car, causing it to stall or something.) >In these cases, there was no independent confirmation, no physical evidence, >etc. so the investigators concluded that they couldn't say one way or another >what the witnesses had seen. I found some mention of this alleged lack of good data as a reason for the unexplained reports in Condon's Summary of the Study in the section titled Explaining UFO Reports, but I couldn't find this conclusion elsewhere. Might you remember where? >The explained cases are interesting though, and say a great deal about >the reliability (or lack thereof) of eyewitness testimony. Let me emphasize once again that UFO "believer" investigator/researchers fully acknowledge that people are wrong about seeing true UFOs or flying saucers 90% of the time. (In a true UFO, the person reserves judgment -- many people do this -- and don't "leap to the conclusion" that they saw a flying saucer; they just leave it as simply an UNindentified object. Other folks go ahead and say to themselves, "Well, I must have seen a flying saucer since it fit my idea (that I got from popular culture) of what a flying saucer is supposed to look like and behave like.) Let me reiterate, PEOPLE ARE MISTAKEN 90 PERCENT OF THE TIME ABOUT SEEING TRUE UFOS. What they actually have seen is an IFO, which is discovered by close, competent investigation by UFO investigators like me. (A fellow MUFON investigator here in Oregon recently established beyond a reasonable doubt that a photographic UFO hoax was perpetrated on an unsuspecting Dalles, OR, newspaper editor. Incidentally, hoaxes are the explanation for less than 1% of all UFO reports.) >Anyway, this book is an interesting look at the skeptical side of things - >it shows that most people, even experienced pilots, radar operators, and >astronauts, can easily misinterpret relatively ordinary phenomena. Don't get carried away with the idea that debunkers like Phil Klass, the deceased Donald Menzel, and Robert Sheaffer would like you to believe that our sensory apparatus becomes grossly unreliable when transient phenomena are being observed. Genuine or true UFOs (see Allan Hendry's study for a definition of these) are experienced on average for greater than 1 minute NOT less than 20 or 30 seconds. Actually, Hendry's study of 1307 UFO reports showed that the peak of his genuine UFOs was between 3 and 10 minutes duration. The problem with the study of the UFO evidence is political; it does not lie with the nature of the evidence itself. That the evidence is especially difficult to interpret is a great UNtruth that debunkers affiliated with CSICOP and some academicians (Carl Sagan), mainstream newspaper editors (at the NY Times), and TV producers (at the major networks) would like you to believe. Please note that the study I quoted, the letter I quoted, and Hendry's book are all somewhat difficult to obtain. The opinions, studies, etc., of the poeple who spend the most time looking at the UFO are routinely ignored in the mainstream media -- except for Unsolved Mysteries, and the tabloid TV shows at the moment. Getting the word out is the problem -- not lack of evidence or any special difficulties in interpreting the evidence.