Bringing part of a conversation from
this thread over here, as it's highly
relevant ...
The problem at the moment is there are very few bodies that are willing to do "official" evaluations to complete the "official escalation of
explanation" loop.
What I find compelling is that the US government was confronted by many scientists who agreed average people were reporting a "true unknown"
phenomenon throughout the '40s and '60s (Drs. Mirarchi, La Paz, Hynek, Thayer, Shough, J. E. McDonald, R. Leo Sprinkle, Garry C. Henderson, Roger N.
Shepard, Robert Hall, James Harder, Robert M. L. Baker, Frank Salisbury, Seymour Hess, Charles B. Moore, Al Cameron, Robert M. Wood, Eugene Epstein,
Gordon MacDonald, Robert Wilson, etc). In response to this the USAF / AFSAB started Twinkle and escalated to Project Sign, Grudge, Blue Book and
finally the Condon Committee.
Unfortunately Dr. Edward Condon's report was "official" enough to render all opposing viewpoints moot despite 30% of the reviewed cases remaining
unknown after spending $500,000 of taxpayers money. Even scientists with an anti-UFO position considered the report rubbish (ie/
Thornton Page) because the "Conclusions and Recommendations" and "Summary of the Study" didn't
accurately reflect the contents of the study.
Sadly I think history is going to have a very poor view of Dr. Condon for one simple reason. As humans we know that we don't understand all of
reality and thus we accept the following Venn diagram as true (obviously the percentages vary).
Effectively by shouting down the study of UFOs Condon was stating that there was nothing new in our skies that is "truly unknown" that could be
learned through the anecdotal testimony of the average person. In Dr. Condon's words,
As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding
to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific
knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be
justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
(Source: (1969) Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Boulder, Colorado: Bantam Books. ISBN NA, pg. 1)
With the help of hindsight we can prove Dr. Condon wrong.
Sprites, large scale electrical discharges that occur high above thunderstorm clouds, were documented "with anecdotal reports since 1886."
(
1) It wasn't until 1989 that scientists photographed the phenomenon! Colin Price, a
geophysicist at Tel Aviv U., believes Sprites have resulted in numerous UFO reports. (source:
space.com)
Now some might argue that Condon was using a different definition of UFO (ie/ alien craft). I'll quote the Condon Report's definition verbatim,
An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced OOFO) is here defined as the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something
seen in the sky (or an object thought to be capable of flight but seen when landed on the earth) which the observer could not identify as having an
ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it to police, to government officials, to
the press, or perhaps to a representative of a private organization devoted to the study of such objects.
(Condon 1969, pg. 9)
Since we have an example where Condon was incorrect, does that not also suggest there are
other 'true unknowns' being observed that could
account for yet other sightings? Obviously!
I've been trying very hard to impart to friends in the scientific community that the scientific method is benefited by using the above process to
locate genuine unknowns so they can be studied and deductively analyzed. However without people to confirm or debunk sightings the "official
escalation of explanation" loop is non-existent and therefore the process degrades into conspiracy theories.
Furthermore
the USAF is roped into this study whether they like it or not.
