It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ufo reality
To sum it up:
The USAF paid the University of Colorado $300,000 to have a report produced which was bias in their favor and not scientific. They still use the Condon report to this day to justify their "so called" lack of interest in UFOs. When you request information from the USAF, they simply write back with a standard reply sighting the Condon report.
Originally posted by ufo reality
But of course the mass media doesn't seem to understand this or point it out during any of their prime time documentaries.
News Media Complicity and UFOs with Terry Hansen.
"A mesmerizing account of his investigation into whether some of America's most influential news organizations, many having maintained close ties to the U.S. intelligence community, have willingly suppressed full and accurate news coverage of extraterrestrial related phenomena for a variety of "national-security" reasons.
Originally posted by Scramjet76
My question to you my ATS colleagues: Is there any way to put a modern "Condon Committee" together without having the bias?
"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
"The inside story by an ex-member of the official study group" -Dr. David Saunders.
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.
Extract from "UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Great thread. While there may or may not be something of extraterrestrial origin to hide (which I don't think there is anything concrete there) we can all admit that the government was keen to take advantage of the UFO subject for secret weapons testing and national security items.
"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.
From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."
Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980
1966 - 1968--The University of Colorado Study
...Of some 90 cases considered, almost 30 were not explained. As an indication of the lack of serious intent of the study, only three unexplained cases from the Air Force's total of almost 600 were looked into. It should have been obvious that if there was anything truly mysterious or even mildly interesting about UFOs, it could probably have been found in the cases that the Air Force admitted it could not explain.
Among the conclusions for cases the Condon Committee staff failed to explain were these samples of several they obviously found quite baffling:
5/11/50, Oregon. "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."
5/7/52, Brazil. ". . . one of the strongest and demonstrably 'genuine' flying saucer sightings."
8/5/53, South Dakota. ". . . no tenable conclusions can be reached."
6/23/55, New York. ". . . this sighting defies explanation by conventional means."
8/13/56, England. "The preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case . . . ." [Unfortunately, the intriguing phrase "a genuine UFO" is not defined.]
5/13/67, Colorado. "This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on record."
Despite the failure of the Condon Committee's final report to explain more than 30% of the cases investigated, it had the desired effect. In December 1969, the Air Force's Project Blue Book investigation was shut down, and a 25-year period of official silence began.
Originally posted by Gazrok
Hynek remains as one of the most influential ones to speak about it...after all, he used to be on their team....
Later, he admitted to the mission of basically sweeping it all under the rug. It's people like him that got me to first really dive into the subject...people who used to be involved in the coverup, who then came forward to set the record straight, even in the face of ridicule and loss of academic cred....
The Colorado University report, known more widely as the Condon Report, was massive. At over 950 pages in its soon-to-be published paperback form, it probably fulfilled Robert Low's desire to "build the record." Despite its intimidating length, however, the Condon Report suffered from several major failings. In the places where it counted most – the case studies – the report was skimpy. Why, a reader might ask, with 18 months to investigate, did the project produce so few studies? True, many reports were conducted more thoroughly than Blue Book, NICAP, or APRO had done, but 58 cases is still not much to go on. Of the 550 then-unexplained reports in the Blue Book files, the Colorado Project had considered only three. Also, many of the sightings investigated by the project were poor bets to begin with.
Probably the most striking discrepancy in the report, however, was between its contents and conclusions. Condon had concluded that science could gain nothing from studying UFOs. Yet, the report ended up with a near 30 percent unexplained rate, and a core of cases that came within a hair's breadth of being conclusive evidence for the reality of alien technology – cases which, under the most rigorous analysis, appeared to be the result of extraordinary craft in the skies.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by karl 12
Great thread karl 12
this is the smoking gun that proves the goverment wanted to conceal the truth from the public. they thought it would get them "out of the ufo business" but what it actually did was prove that there is something to hide !
Originally posted by fls13
I actually don't blame the USAF for wanting to get out of UFO investigation in terms of reports from the public.
The government couldn't conceal the "truth" from the public 'cause the "truth" was simply that no one knew what those objects were
these agencies are more interested in protecting the methods that they use and not necessarily the data they acquire. THOSE are the secrets that the gov't doesn't want known
When the US government created the Condon Committee in the late 1960s to study the UFO phenomenon and see if a "final explanation" could be found, McDonald eagerly offered his services to the committee. Given his extensive research into the subject and his impeccable scientific credentials, McDonald was a logical choice to serve, but he was not chosen as a committee member. The reason for this snub soon became clear, as the Committee's two leaders, Dr. Edward Condon and Dr. Robert Low, were revealed to be hard-line UFO debunkers, and both Condon and Low were determined to have the Committee come to an "Anti-UFO" conclusion, no matter what the Committee's research revealed.
McDonald (along with other prominent UFOlogists) made fierce criticisms of the Committee's leadership and bias, but to no avail. The Condon Report, published in 1969, couldn't find explanations for nearly one-third of the cases it examined, but Dr. Condon in his introduction to the Report flatly stated that UFOs didn't exist and that serious science had nothing to gain from studying the subject. Undaunted, McDonald wrote a number of detailed and thoughtful criticisms of the Condon Report, most of which have been ignored by the larger scientific community and Anti-UFO critics.
Nevertheless, the Condon Report marked the beginning of the end for McDonald. His strong and forceful advocacy of UFOs as a serious subject worthy of scientific attention had earned him many critics in the scientific community, most of whom wanted only to ignore UFO cases and disliked having their "intellectual laziness" on the subject revealed by McDonald..