It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking the Condon Report.

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
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.

But of course the mass media doesn't seem to understand this or point it out during any of their prime time documentaries.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by ufo reality]




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

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.


Well summed up.





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.


Yes its rather frustrating -Terry Hansen makes some mighty fine points about the corporate media's attitude to the UFO/OVNI subject in this film:



News Media Complicity and UFOs with Terry Hansen.

Link


"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.


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

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?



I'm sure there are ego obsessed, agenda based individuals on either side of the debate but it's certainly an interesting question - I'd hope it would attempt to be a bit more objective than the Condon committee or any other 'government sponsered' investigations - here's what the Yale Scientific Magazine had to say about Bluebook's efforts:





"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


Cheers.



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Information from Dr David Saunders on the inner workings of the Condon Committee and the UFOCAT computer database.



"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


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

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.



ITF, it also seems that some of these USAF UFO explanations have very little regard for objective analysis:


USAF "force fit" debunks.


Whether the USAF were just concocting these explanations for national security reasons is another question but some of the reported flight characteristics and object descriptions sound very strange indeed.

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Relevant quote:



"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


Link


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Further reading and examples of discrepencies and irregularities within the Colorado Report:



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.

Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

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....


Hynek lost cred primarily because of the following (and, please, never mind that I got it from Wikipedia, it's the same anywhere):
74.125.113.132...:F14MEZG0rn0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek+allen+hynek+and+swap+gas&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en
"In late March 1966, in Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously made the qualification that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications were largely overlooked, and the words "swamp gas" were repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision."



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Ed, I think you may have got it the wrong way round there - didn't he gain credibility when he stated that Project Bluebook had misled the public?


See 1:00





As for the Colorado/Condon report - heres Richard Dolan's take on it:



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.
Link


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Paul Kimball discusses the Condon Report:








posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

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 !
snip


No one in his right mind and learning the truth as outlined in the documents can come to any other conclusion that the Condon Report was a whitewash. However, I disagree with you as to your statement above. The government couldn't conceal the "truth" from the public 'cause the "truth" was simply that no one knew what those objects were. The objects were flagrantly flying in what the U.S. Gov't thinks is "restricted space" (ALL of the U.S.!) and these objects' purpose or any other information was unknown.

Additionally, whenever any gov't agency such as the CIA, FBI, etc., performs any investigation it is considered either SECRET or TOP SECRET because 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. From the first report to the present, UFOs are still a mystery to all. I do not accept any report that either this gov't or that gov't knows something or anything about UFOs.

Yes, there is something to hide but it's not conspiracies.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The late, great Richard Hall discussing The Colorado project:




Google Video Link




Author / researcher Dick Hall ( The UFO evidence, Vols. 1 and 2 ) discusses his experience with The University of Colorado Project on UFOs in the late 1960s, which led to the infamous Condon Report



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

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.


I think this is a reasonable explanation considering they were flooded with reports. Plus this was during the cold war and maybe they wanted to keep a lid on things.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 



The government couldn't conceal the "truth" from the public 'cause the "truth" was simply that no one knew what those objects were


i disagree, and i think the people who make claims such as the one your making do it because their ignorant; not in the information loop and don't have a need to know. how do you know for sure your not just repeating some counter intelligence propaganda ?






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


i would agree with you on the protecting the methods part but i disagree that is all there is too it. maybe your forgetting to factor in your conclusions, the military industrial complex ?





McDonnell Douglas studied UFOs in the 1960s



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Article discussing Dr James E. Mcdonald and the Condon report:




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..


link


edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The best thing to do is just read the report for yourself.

A case I actually know a bit about, the DC 52 case, makes a great read. Talk about cherry picking and ignoring the most compelling evidence . . . .



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Sorry, I did delete this post because I did post my reply in the wrong thread.

edit on 31/1/11 by spacevisitor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies - Kathleen Marden (the niece of Betty Hill) also makes some extremely good points about the Condon Committee in this short presentaton from the MUFON Symposium in 2010:





posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Condon Report Peer Reviewed Analysis - P. A. Sturrock, Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, Stanford University (pdf):


An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join