From - Wed Oct 16 20:19:05 1996
X-POP3-Rcpt: ez073888@peseta
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by peseta.ucdavis.edu (8.8.0/UCD3.7.1)
	id TAA12482; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from caleb.INS.CWRU.Edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.8.0/UCD3.7.1)
	id OAA11890; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (aa440@localhost) by caleb.INS.CWRU.Edu (8.7.6+cwru/CWRU-2.3-bsdi)
	id QAA06020; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 16:59:13 -0400 (EDT) (from aa440)
Message-Id: <199610162059.QAA06020@caleb.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 16:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: aa440@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dale Wedge)
To: orphillips@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Condon Committee UFO Report
Reply-To: aa440@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dale Wedge)
Content-Type: text
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 30562

In a previous article, xx044 (UFOlogy SIG) says:

>       When the United States Air Force decided in March 1969 to 
>
>terminate the publicly acknowledged portion of its program for 
>
>collection of UFO reports known as "Project Blue Book," and since the 
>
>time it did so on December 17 ,1969, there has been no official 
>
>governmental agency to which UFO sightings could be reported or from 
>
>which explanations for continuing sightings could be expected.  The 
>
>termination of the project came on the heels of the release on 
>
>January 8, 1969 of the now infamous study commissioned by the Air 
>
>Force at the University of Colorado under the "scientific direction" 
>
>of Edward U. Condon, Ph.D., who was at the time professor of Physics 
>
>and Astrophysics at the university.  Among a long list of significant 
>
>accomplishments, Condon had been a member of the committee which 
>
>established the top secret atomic bomb program during World War II.  
>
>Twenty years after its release, it is now fair to judge that the 
>
>Colorado study has become a permanent blemish on an eminent 
>
>scientist's otherwise distinguished career.
>
>       By 1972, when it became clear that UFOs would not just "go 
>
>away" in the post-Condon Committee years, Condon became so frustrated 
>
>by the avalanche of criticism he received for his participation in 
>
>the botched study that he claimed to have destroyed all project files 
>
>in his possession.  Faced with the discrediting of his efforts, he  
>
>remained curiously unapologetic for his activities until his death in 
>
>March 1974.  By that time he had withdrawn from further debate or 
>
>defense of his findings and recommendations.  His final public 
>
>statement concerning UFOs, reported in the October 19, 1973 issue of 
>
>the Pensacola News (Florida), quoted him lamely calling the 
>
>continuing UFO reports "pretty much fantasy stuff." 
>
>       Given the obvious vested interest the Air Force had in the 
>
>outcome of the project, it now appears rather naive to have expected 
>
>that any study funded and commissioned by the Air Force which 
>
>"coincidentally" selected Condon as project director, could have been 
>
>any more objective than the CIA funded Robertson panel report 
>
>(discussed below) had been.  The disservice done to all of us by 
>
>Condon and his adherants has been to delay potential scientific 
>
>breakthroughs or solutions to the continuing UFO mystery.  As 
>
>Congressman William F. Ryan (N.Y.) correctly predicted on the House 
>
>floor after release of the study, "Public interest in UFOs cannot be 
>
>wished away and reported sightings will persist."
>
>       This paper will consider the accuracy of the conclusions 
>
>reached by Dr. Condon in view of the several contrary findings 
>
>reported by his own staff members and examine how his interpretations 
>
>and findings instead reflect those of the Robertson study and the 
>
>opinions of Harvard astronomer Donald H. Menzel.  The "weathering" of 
>
>Condon's findings over the past 20 years will be reviewed, with 
>
>particular emphasis on the theme of the 1989 MUFON Sympopsium (i.e. 
>
>government secrecy concerning UFOs).
>
>       At the very conception of this regrettable chapter in the 
>
>history of Ufology, a "ticking bomb" was unwittingly placed in the 
>
>project's records by Robert Low (the eventual project coordinator) 
>
>who wrote his now infamous memo to university administrators in 
>
>August of 1966, as they were considering whether to accept the Air 
>
>Force contract.  Low said,
>
>
>
>       "...the trick would be to describe the project so that, 
>       to the public, it would appear a totally objective 
>       study but, to the scientific community, would present 
>       the image of a group of non-believers trying their best 
>       to be objective but having and almost zero expectation 
>       of finding a saucer." (Emphasis added.)
>
>
>       Low suggested that the best way to accomplish this would be to 
>
>emphasize the investigation of psychological and social factors of 
>
>persons who reported UFOs, rather than examining the potential 
>
>physical reality of the stimuli for the reports.  Low felt the 
>
>scientific community would "quickly get the message."
>
>       Clearly, this is exactly the methodology adopted by Condon, 
>
>who throughout the course of the study, refused to consider the truly 
>
>puzzling hard core reports and chose to instead emphasize the "kook" 
>
>cases typically written off by serious investigators.  The four or 
>
>five cases he personally investigated all involved contactees or 
>
>outright hoaxes.  In June of 1967, he went so far as to attend a New 
>
>York City symposium held by contactee followers, and even took a bow 
>
>from the audience.
>
>       Condon's prejudices paralleled those of Harvard astronomer 
>
>Donald H. Menzel, who also held a top secret clearance and was a 
>
>reputed member of MJ-12.  Calling himself "the man who shot Santa 
>
>Claus," Menzel began in 1952 to outline his UFO theories in 
>
>nationally published magazine articles.  As would Condon later, he 
>
>attributed the sightings to mirages caused by an assortment of 
>
>natural phenomena such as temperature inversions, refractions, ice 
>
>crystals and reflections.  Menzel predicted that, "these saucers will 
>
>eventually vanish--most appropriately, into thin air, the region that 
>
>gave birth to them."  Thirty-seven years later, UFOs have not only 
>
>not vanished, but the reports have become more puzzling.  Except as 
>
>they may continue to be cited by uninformed skeptics, the  validity 
>
>of Menzel's and Condon's opinions have instead "vanished" as they 
>
>have become largely irrelevant for modern serious study of the 
>
>subject.
>
>       The obvious negative biases about the subject which Condon 
>
>found so difficult to conceal even in the early stages of the study 
>
>ultimately destroyed whatever real credibility the Condon study may 
>
>have had.  In his letter of October 11, 1967 to the Denver Post, for 
>
>example, Dr. Condon wrote:
>
>
>
>       "What can be learned from the UFO project can make 
>       valuable contributions to knowledge of atmospheric 
>       effects and of people's behavior when observing them 
>       under unusual conditions...we will be doing a great 
>       public service if we can by teaching improve public 
>       understanding to the point where many of the things now 
>       seen and reported as UFOs become as fully understood as 
>       eclipses...Many people find it extremely difficult not 
>       to pass judgment before all the facts are in."  (Cf. 
>       Dr. Condon's speech of January 25, 1967 in which he 
>       wrote off the whole subject when the project was in its 
>       infancy).
>               "I believe that the great discovery of the 
>       human race in the so-called scientific age is that the 
>       study of nature by the calm, careful collection of 
>       observations, and their analysis by rational thought 
>       processes, is an extraordinarily powerful way of 
>       learning about natural phenomena, and that the 
>       application of such methods will also prove fruitful 
>       here." (Emphasis added).
>
>
>       Condon was repeating opinions originally put forward in 1953 
>
>by Menzel, with the release of his first book, Flying Saucers, in 
>
>which he asserted that UFO reports were all attributable to natural 
>
>phenomena.  Although holding no medical license or degree in 
>
>psychology, he implicitly claimed sufficient "expertise" in those 
>
>areas to determine that the problem was essentially psychological, in 
>
>that Americans were suffering from "international jitters" and 
>
>reported anything anomolous observed in the skies as a UFO because
>
>they worried about an atomic war.  He "diagnosed" those persons who 
>
>gave credence to the extraterrestrial hypothesis as "lunatics, 
>
>cultists, religious fanatics, or, at best, frightened and confused." 
>
>       Notwithstanding his later disclaimers to the contrary, Condon 
>
>held the same opinion, as evidenced by his drawing the following 
>
>analogy, calling the comparison "cogent", concerning the difficulty 
>
>in establishing that some UFOs could be extra-terrestrial:
>
>
>
>       "The problem is more difficult than finding a needle in 
>       a haystack; it is finding a piece of extra-terrestrial 
>       hay in a terrestrial haystack, often on the basis of 
>       believers in extra-terrestrial hay." (Emphasis added).
>
>
>       Yet, Condon claims that in evaluating the calibre of witnesses 
>
>making UFO reports, the committee found that they are primarily 
>
>normal and responsible individuals who are merely puzzled about what 
>
>they saw and looking for explanations. "Only a very few are obviously 
>
>quite emotionally disturbed, their minds being filled with pseudo-
>
>scientific, pseudo-religious or other fantasies." He found "rather 
>
>less than some people may have expected in the way of psychiatric 
>
>problems related to belief in the reality of UFOs as craft from 
>
>remote galactic or intergalactic civilizations."
>
>       Although the committee established a policy against any 
>
>statements to the press before release of its final report, this 
>
>prohibition did not extend to Dr. Condon himself and he freely 
>
>excercised his privilege.  In a speech made January 25, 1967 to the 
>
>American Chemical Society and quoted in the next issue of the Elmira, 
>
>New York, Star-Gazette, Dr. Condon indicated:
>
>
>
>       "'It is my inclination right now to recommend that the 
>       government get out of this business.  My attitude right 
>       now is that there is nothing to it'...With a smile he 
>       added, 'but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for 
>       another year...This just isn't a military problem; I 
>       can't see where the national safety is at stake...Maybe 
>       it would be a worthwhile study for those groups 
>       interested in meteorological phenomena.'"(Emphasis 
>       added)
>
>       Here was the presumably "unbiased" scientific director of a 
>
>panel of scientists, contracted and paid with tax dollars by the U.S. 
>
>Air Force, reciting the major points of the project's final report 
>
>which would ostensibly not be written for another year: (a) UFOs are 
>
>not worth further serious study except as a "metorological" or social 
>
>problem (b) there is no threat to the national security from UFOs and 
>
>(c) the Air Force should remove itself from publicly admitted UFO 
>
>responsibilities. 
>
>
>
> The continued participation in the study by Dr. Condon in light of 
>
>his many similar negative statements, raises serious question as to 
>
>the actual purposes and motives behind Dr. Condon's selection to 
>
>chair the committee.  His admitted strong predisposition to reach a 
>
>negative conclusion belied his later posturing that his primary 
>
>concern was to staff the study with personnel of adequate scientific 
>
>training, rather than with persons emotionally committed to extreme 
>
>pro or con views on the subject.  Obviously, this restriction did not 
>
>apply to Dr. Condon.
>
>       Predictably, Condon's interpretations in the final 1,485 page 
>
>report two years later was identical to his initially expressed 
>
>opinions, as he summarily dismissed the subject in the first two 
>
>paragraphs of the first section, writing, "nothing has come from the 
>
>study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific 
>
>knowledge...further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be 
>
>justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." 
>
>       He recommended that scientists in agreement with this opinion 
>
>turn their attention to other pursuits and suggested that those who 
>
>disagreed would find in his report areas where existing studies are 
>
>incomplete and requiring more accurate study.  However, Condon 
>
>cautioned against establishment of any new agency of the federal
>
>government for the scientific study of UFOs, although, "...this 
>
>conclusion may not be true for all time."  He recommended that 
>
>nothing be done with UFO reports continuing to be received from the 
>
>public "in the expectation that they are going to contribute to the 
>
>advance of science." However, Condon was silent as to what, if 
>
>anything, should be done with UFO reports continuing to be received 
>
>from other sources.
>
>       The final Condon Committee report was evaluted in November 
>
>1968 by an eleven member panel the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
>
>who agreed with Condon's conclusion that a systematic study of UFO 
>
>reports would not increase scientific knowledge, but apparently 
>
>confusing the UFO problem with the extraterrestrial hypothesis, 
>
>gratutitously adding, "the least likely explanation of UFOs is the 
>
>hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings."  
>
>Like Condon, the NAS had distorted the stated goal of the study.  The 
>
>real issue was not whether UFO were extraterrestrial, but whether the 
>
>reports had any basis in reality apart from the psychological makeup 
>
>of the witnesses.
>
>
>
>...., in November 1970, a contrary conclusion was announced by the 
>
>American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, which found it 
>
>"difficult to ignore the small residue of well-documented but 
>
>unexplainable cases which form the hard core of the UFO controversy" 
>
>and found no basis for Condon's opinion that nothing of scientific 
>
>value could come from continued UFO research.
>
>
>
>
>
>       A common misperception among uninformed skeptics and others 
>
>who have not studied the final Condon report in detail (reinforced by 
>
>"expert" opinions such as those announced by the NAS) is that the 
>
>study was intended to determine whether any UFO reports involved
>
>sightings of extraterrestrial craft and/or whether there existed any 
>
>threat to national security arising from the reported phenomena.  As 
>
>stated by Condon in his Summary of the Study: "In setting up the 
>
>Colorado project...the emphasis was on whether deeper study of 
>
>unidentified flying objects might provide some 'additions to 
>
>scientific knowledge.'" He specifically disclaimed any attempt to 
>
>independently evaluate the Air Force conclusion that any of the UFO 
>
>reports constituted any threat or hazard to national security.
>
>       Therefore, it is difficult to reconcile the expansion of the 
>
>study by Condon into areas for which no examination had been publicly 
>
>authorized by the Air Force except to conclude that, in doing so, he 
>
>was fulfilling some hidden agenda.  Condon acknowledged that although 
>
>unequivocal proof that UFOs are extraterrestrial would be the 
>
>greatest scientific discovery in the history of mankind, the study 
>
>found "...no direct evidence supporting the claim that any UFO 
>
>reports studied represent spacecraft visiting Earth from another 
>
>civilization."  He facetiously qualified this conclusion, 
>
>saying,"...no prediction is made for the future...If new evidence 
>
>appears later, this report can be appropriately revised in a second 
>
>printing."
>
>       Moreover, Dr. Condon expands his analysis into areas of 
>
>military defense concern also not within the limits within which the 
>
>committee was established. He concluded that the defense function 
>
>should be continued within extant intelligence and surveillance 
>
>operations "without the continuance of a special unit such as Project 
>
>Blue Book." He finds:
>
>
>
>       "no evidence of secrecy concerning UFO reports.  What 
>       has been miscalled secrecy has been no more than an 
>       intelligent policy of delay in releasing data so that 
>       the public does not become confused by premature 
>       publication of incomplete studies of reports."
>
>       Amazingly, Condon then gratuitously adds,
>
>       "Since 1953 the results of UFO study have been 
>       unclassified, except where tangential reasons exist for 
>       withholding details, as, for example, where sightings 
>       are related to launchings of classified missles, or to 
>       the use of classified radar systems...During the period 
>       from March 1952 to the present, the structure for 
>       handling UFO reports in the Air Force has been called 
>       Project Blue Book."
>       "...We are assured that the federal government would 
>       withhold no information on the subject, and that all 
>       essential information about UFOs could be included in 
>       this report." (Emphasis added)
>
>
>
>       Reading Condon's final recommendations and conclusions 
>
>together with the remainder of the study, one questios whether these 
>
>are parts of the same report.  Apparently, Dr. Condon relied only in 
>
>part on the team studies and rather heavily on the personal opinions 
>
>he had expressed the prior year.  G gratuituously sprinkled 
>
>throughtout Condon's  final report are a number of unsupported 
>
>opinions concerning matters never studied by the panel and outide the 
>
>scope of the study.  The Condon Committee was not contracted and did 
>
>not study whether there existed any governmental secrecy in UFO 
>
>matters, yet Condon offers in his summary that,
>
>
>
>       "...It would be impossible to keep a secret of such 
>       enormity for over two decades...no useful purpose would 
>       be served by engaging in such an alleged conspiracy of 
>       silence.  One person with whom we have dealt actually 
>       maintains that this super-secret matter is in the hands 
>       of the Central Intelligence Agency which, he says, 
>       installed one of its own agents (i.e. Condon) as 
>       scientific director of the Colorado study. This story, 
>       if true, is indeed a well kept secret. These 
>       allegations of a conspiracy on the part of our own 
>       government to conceal knowledge of the existence of 
>       'flying saucers' have, so far as any evidence that has 
>       come to our attention, no factual basis whatever."
>
>
>
>
>       This was incorrect and Condon knew it.  Had his 
>
>representations been accurate, it would then be fair to expect that 
>
>all "complete studies of reports" to date would have been released.  
>
>Those significant documents which have been discovered have not been 
>
>voluntarly released and efforts to force further disclosures through 
>
>the FOIA confirm that thousands of pages of UFO related documents, 
>
>many over several decades old and presumably of little intelligence 
>
>value, continue to be withheld from the public behind a wall of 
>
>obscure, sometimes contrived, "national security" excuses.
>
>       The CIA had long maintained that it had no interest or 
>
>involvment in the collection and/or analysis of UFO releated 
>
>materials.  Once classified CIA documents have established otherwise 
>
>and confirm Condon's knowledge of, and participation in, the CIA's 
>
>pretense of CIA noninvolvement in UFO related matters. CIA documents 
>
>obtained through the federal courts confirm that CIA's National 
>
>Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) analysed photographs 
>
>studied by the Condon Committee with Condon's guarantee of secrecy 
>
>and his promise to "make no reference to CIA in regard to this work 
>
>effort." (See,  ****** cited in Clear Intent, Fawcett and Greenwood, 
>
>Prentice-Hall, 1984 pp. 141-142).
>
>       Official policy concerning UFOs changed dramatically in 1953, 
>
>primarily due to the recommendations of the CIA-sponsored Robertson 
>
>panel and possibly motivated by considerations set out in the MJ-12 
>
>documents whose authenticity remain an open question at this time.  
>
>In describing the history of UFOs to that point, Condon admitted that
>
>"early investigations were carried on in secrecy by the Air Force" 
>
>and other foreign governments, but that with the large 1952 
>
>Washington D.C. flap and resulting "clogging" of military 
>
>communications channels with sighting reports, a study was 
>
>commissioned under the chairmanship of H.P. Robertson, professor of 
>
>mathematical physics at the California Institute of Technology and a  
>
>CIA classified employee.  Interestingly, the panel also included 
>
>physicist Lloyd V. Berkner, at the time a director of the Brookhaven 
>
>National Laboratories, and reputed member of MJ-12.
>
>       On the last day it met, the panel spent a few hours analyzing 
>
>the UFO phenomenon before adjourning with the finding that UFOs 
>
>presented no direct threat to national security and warning that 
>
>having a military source foster public concern in what it called 
>
>"nocturnal meandering lights" was possibly dangerous since the public 
>
>might be encouraged by military involvment to believe in the 
>
>existence of some potential threat.  The panel recommended that UFOs 
>
>be "debunked" so as to remove the aura of mystery surrounding the 
>
>subject and a "public information campaign" be institued to produce a 
>
>"better" understanding of the subject.
>
>       In many ways, the Robertson panel findings are identical to 
>
>those of the Condon report fifteen years later, and served a similar 
>
>propaganda function with regard to promoting a "better understanding" 
>
>of UFOs and assisting the Air Force with its public relations problem 
>
>by permitting it to point to an "exhaustive" study by an "impartial" 
>
>panel of prominent scientist who had fully examined the UFO 
>
>phenomenon and found nothing of scientific interest nor any direct 
>
>threat to national security.  It is noteworthy that some of the
>
>panelists joked about the subject and expressed negative biases 
>
>toward the subject, one member calling it "a complete waste of time," 
>
>requiring investigation by "psychiatrists rather than physicists."  
>
>Clearly, within fifteen years, when the Condon Committee was 
>
>convened, the conclusions and recommendations of the Robertson panel 
>
>were no more credible or valid than are those of the Condon Committee 
>
>today.
>
>       Again repeating and expanding upon the recommendations of the 
>
>Robertson panel, and again without supporting studies by the panel 
>
>for his conclusions, Condon proposed that the debunking effort be 
>
>taken up by the educational system as well:
>
>
>
>       "Teachers who find their students strongly motivated in 
>       this direction should attempt to channel their 
>       interests in the direction of serious study of 
>       astronomy and meteorology, and in the direction of 
>       criticl analysis of arguments for fantastic 
>       propositions that are being supported by appeals to 
>       fallacious reasoning of false data."
>
>       Presumably, these suggestions also extend to critical analysis 
>
>of the Condon report.  The final report released to the public in 
>
>January 1969 is a compilation of several sections, padded with 
>
>superfluous technical material of little or no apparent connection to 
>
>the UFO problem and written by several different persons.  Although 
>
>the final Condon Committee report failed to analyze more than a small 
>
>fraction of the truly puzzling cases and did not report on most of 
>
>the significant cases it listed in the report, a total of ninety-one 
>
>cases are reviewed, including sixty-one listed as "identified" 
>
>misperceptions, illusions or outright hoaxes.  The remaining thirty-
>
>one cases are unexplained, leaving a significantly higher percentage 
>
>of unexplained cases than the even Air Force found and which 
>
>originally created the alleged need for the Condon study.
>
>       Buried in the study's text, and ignored by Dr. Condon, are a 
>
>number of rather incredible case studies and conclusions by the 
>
>investigators who did examine a few of the truly puzzling cases, such 
>
>as, "The apparent rational intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a 
>
>mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation 
>
>of this sighting...[and]...the probability that at least one genuine 
>
>UFO was involved appears to be fairly high." In another case, the 
>
>analysis reports that the sighting, "defies explanation by 
>
>conventional means," and in another, "This is one of the few UFO 
>
>reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological 
>
>and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an 
>
>extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of 
>
>meters in diameter and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two 
>
>witnesses."  Perhaps the classic "double-speak" evaluation in the 
>
>case analyses is the conclusion that one "unusual sighting should 
>
>therefore be assigned to the category of some almost certainly 
>
>natural phenomenon which is so rare that it apparently has never been 
>
>reported before or since." (Emphasis added)
>
>       The panel's methodology failed to correlate the patterns in 
>
>the truly puzzling reports studied and formulate hypotheses to 
>
>account for them, but instead emphasized fitting each individual 
>
>report into a prosaic, sometimes farfetched, explanation.  This 
>
>methodology was crystallized in Condon's directive to the panel that, 
>
>"if an (sic) UFO report can be plausibly explained in ordinary terms, 
>
>then we accept that explanation even though not enough evidence may 
>
>be available to prove it beyond all doubt...the problem (is) that of 
>
>learning to recognize the various kinds of stimuli that give rise to 
>
>UFO reports," 
>
>
>
>       "We placed very little value for scientific purposes on 
>       the past accumulation of anecdotal records, most of 
>       which have been explained as arising from sightings of 
>       ordinary objects. Accordingly, I have recommended in 
>       Section I against mounting a major effort for 
>       continuing UFO study for scientific reasons."
>
>       Condon appends to the end of his conclusions a few paragraphs 
>
>critical of the congressional hearings before the House Committee on 
>
>Science and Astronautics on July 29, 1968:
>
>
>
>       "The symposium of 29 July afforded (scientists 
>       testifying before Congress) an occasion on which, with 
>       utmost seriousness, they could put before the Congress 
>       and the public the best possible data and the most 
>       favorable arguments for larger government activity in 
>       this field. Hence it is fair to assume that the 
>       statements presented in thast symposium represent the 
>       maximum case that this group feels could be made. We 
>       welcome the fact that this symposium is available to 
>       the public and expect that its data and arguments will 
>       be compared with those in this report of this study by 
>       those whose duty it is to make responsible decisions in 
>       this area."
>
>       The old saying that, "he who pays the piper calls the tune," 
>
>is no less true because of its age.  The Robertson and Condon studies 
>
>arranged and paid for, respectively, by the CIA and Air Force at 
>
>times of intense public and congressional pressure for "something" to 
>
>be done about UFOs.  The final reports of these studies and the 
>
>unsupported statements made by otherwise coherent scientists are not 
>
>well grounded in a logical progression of analysis, but rather, 
>
>emphasize ad hominem arguments or examples of hoaxes, illusions and 
>
>misidentifications having no relation to the truly puzzling cases 
>
>which continue to be reported.  Some of the reasoning employed is 
>
>indeed so vaccuous as to raise serious doubt about the veracity and 
>
>credibility of these otherwise reasonable scientists.  Either these 
>
>men, being subject to some inexplicable "blindspot" to the subject, 
>
>were unable to fully focus their otherwise considerable mental 
>
>abilities on an objective analysis of the UFO materials they claimed 
>
>to have "fully studied," or their conclusions were intentionally 
>
>grounded in something other than objective scientific analysis. 
>
>        It is no coincidence that Condon, Menzel and members of the 
>
>Robertson panel, all scientists with high security clearances who 
>
>worked under contract with the military and intelligence agencies 
>
>repeatedly parroted official Air Force and CIA statements about UFOs. 
>
>       After the 1952 sightings over Washington, D.C., Menzel 
>
>(otherwise one of the most eminent physical scientists in American 
>
>history) reasoning by human analogy, concluded that the objects could 
>
>not be extraterrestrial because if "they" had spaceships they would 
>
>also have radio by which they would have contacted us. "They would 
>
>get off their ships and have a look at us.  Wouldn't you on Venus?"
>
>       As did the Air Force, CIA, Condon the Robertson panel, Menzel 
>
>claimed that although there was "nothing to the UFO reports," the 
>
>sightings themselves represented a potential threat to national 
>
>security.  Ten years later, as the UFO reports escalated instead of 
>
>"vanishing into thin air," Menzel rehashed these same opinions in his 
>
>second book, UFOs, The World of Flying Saucers, (1963).  He claimed 
>
>that in the short time it met, the Robertson Committee had analyzed 
>
>"every available act of evidence" about UFOs and found no support for 
>
>the extraterrestrial hypothesis, concluding that the "UFO hysteria" 
>
>was "dying a slow and lingering death."
>
>-- 
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>
>
>
>