Was Edward Condon a Disinfo Agent?

a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, partly because you're generalizing.

I can cite cases where nobody that I know of ever questioned the credibility of the witnesses, like Lonnie Zamora for example.

In other cases, people call Venus a UFO. I still wouldn't say I'm questioning their credibility, because I believe they saw an object in the sky they can't identify. The problem isn't that they aren't credible, it's that they don't know how to identify objects in the sky:

“There's a UFO outside...”: Steady-Handed Scotsman Captures UFO Over Loch Lomond

When you explain to them it was Venus and they still list reasons why it wasn't and think it was a UFO, what would you say is the appropriate stance to take on their cognitive abilities?

Then there are yet other cases that have never been explained, like the 2000 Illinois UFO, where I've never heard anybody question the credibility of the witnesses.

Thus I think you have to look at each case on a case by case basis.

a reply to: WarminIndy

These things happen in order when someone reports a UFO...
1: Their credibility as a witness is challenged
2: Their mental faculties are questioned
3: Their supposed motives for hoaxing are diligently sought out by skeptics
4: Their reputations are tarnished
5: Finally, they become the endless source of amusement for bullies and bashers who get on the internet, on the radio, on television shows and in the news to show that these people who have seen UFOs are nutters and hoaxers.

Unfortunately there are endless cases that turn out to be hoaxes or misidentifications and very few that turn out to be something interesting. It is also unfortunate that there are a lot of misconceptions about mental illness and that believing in aliens is also considered a sign of having mental health issues. I also think you are over generalizing "bullies" as "skeptics". I think the real issue is with the hoaxers and the propagation of ignorance concerning mental illness.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, partly because you're generalizing.

I can cite cases where nobody that I know of ever questioned the credibility of the witnesses, like Lonnie Zamora for example.

In other cases, people call Venus a UFO. I still wouldn't say I'm questioning their credibility, because I believe they saw an object in the sky they can't identify. The problem isn't that they aren't credible, it's that they don't know how to identify objects in the sky:

“There's a UFO outside...”: Steady-Handed Scotsman Captures UFO Over Loch Lomond

When you explain to them it was Venus and they still list reasons why it wasn't and think it was a UFO, what would you say is the appropriate stance to take on their cognitive abilities?

Then there are yet other cases that have never been explained, like the 2000 Illinois UFO, where I've never heard anybody question the credibility of the witnesses.

Thus I think you have to look at each case on a case by case basis.

And then you need to publish to that effect, and you need to start presenting to those who dismiss all reports as being hoaxes or crazy people.

It's one thing to tell this to me, it would be another thing if you directly faced the skeptics who refuse to think that witnesses are credible and not hoaxers nor are mentally unbalanced. Sure, some might just be.

But in the case to case explanations, you are really going to have to address the prevailing attitudes from the skeptical community. If you do think all witnesses are not crazy or hoaxers, then you should address that with the rest of the overtly skeptical group.

It's easy to say this to me in this safe forum, it is quite another if you were willing to challenge fellow skeptics who have made it impossible for witnesses that are genuine from ever reporting what they saw.

See, there's a problem when you have on your side people saying "why are all those witnesses rednecks named Bubba?" Sweeping generalization not corrected by your side. Unless you can prove all witnesses are rednecks named Bubba, then that statement should not be allowed to be uttered by the "scientific believing skeptic of any non-natural phenomenon".

Am I a redneck named Bubba, because I witnessed an unidentified flying object?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: WarminIndy

These things happen in order when someone reports a UFO...
1: Their credibility as a witness is challenged
2: Their mental faculties are questioned
3: Their supposed motives for hoaxing are diligently sought out by skeptics
4: Their reputations are tarnished
5: Finally, they become the endless source of amusement for bullies and bashers who get on the internet, on the radio, on television shows and in the news to show that these people who have seen UFOs are nutters and hoaxers.

Unfortunately there are endless cases that turn out to be hoaxes or misidentifications and very few that turn out to be something interesting. It is also unfortunate that there are a lot of misconceptions about mental illness and that believing in aliens is also considered a sign of having mental health issues. I also think you are over generalizing "bullies" as "skeptics". I think the real issue is with the hoaxers and the propagation of ignorance concerning mental illness.

How many bullies does it take to poison a well?

You are really throwing the responsibility of carrying the burden of not being mentally ill, to have to prove they are not mentally ill onto the very witnesses that you cannot prove they are mentally ill nor hoaxing.

Am I a redneck named Bubba?

a reply to: WarminIndy

See, there's a problem when you have on your side people saying "why are all those witnesses rednecks named Bubba?" Sweeping generalization not corrected by your side.

Bring em on! I will rip them a new one right here for ya!

a reply to: WarminIndy

How many bullies does it take to poison a well?

There are quite a few "bullies" on your "side" as well.

You are really throwing the responsibility of carrying the burden of not being mentally ill, to have to prove they are not mentally ill onto the very witnesses that you cannot prove they are mentally ill nor hoaxing.

I honestly don't know what you mean. What I am trying to say is that everyone should be a little more educated.

Am I a redneck named Bubba?

No clue. Am I a denier? A paid government disinformation agent? or A liar? Am I neglecting my kids? Am I on heroin?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: WarminIndy

How many bullies does it take to poison a well?

There are quite a few "bullies" on your "side" as well.

You are really throwing the responsibility of carrying the burden of not being mentally ill, to have to prove they are not mentally ill onto the very witnesses that you cannot prove they are mentally ill nor hoaxing.

I honestly don't know what you mean. What I am trying to say is that everyone should be a little more educated.

Am I a redneck named Bubba?

No clue. Am I a denier? A paid government disinformation agent? or A liar? Am I neglecting my kids? Am I on heroin?

No clue. I don't know you.

Yes, everyone should be more educated, including a large number of young people who have traded scientific inquiry for blanket acceptance of one world view.

That's where you can help. See, if you said to those young people that even though there are hoaxes, there are still genuine sightings.

And our side can say that while there are genuine sightings, there are hoaxes. We can surely meet in the middle.

My problem is that young people today have suddenly embraced this idea that if a scientist said it, then it must be so. And then parrot the claims of the only scientific side that they have been taught as being genuinely scientific. See the problem?

Unless all science and all scientists are heard, we are going to have this problem for a very long time.

a reply to: WarminIndy

And then you need to publish to that effect, and you need to start presenting to those who dismiss all reports as being hoaxes or crazy people.

There is never going to be general acceptance of UFOs or Bigfoot until there are high rez polaroids/video of said phenomena. No one on this forum is going to be able to influence the public at large to change either.

As in the Ravenna case, officers were basically forced into other work. Personally I think it is one of the better alien UFO cases, but for many people, pics or it didnt happen.

If I saw a UFO, I certainly wouldnt make a big to-do about it. I might post it on these forums (yes some people need thicker skins if you allow yourself to be baited into a rant by a wily skeptic), but otherwise, why put up with the hassle it would bring publicly?

Its just the way some people are wired, some will need close to absolute proof to believe ( no use crying about it, they arent going to change if we stomp our feet), while others on this forum seem like they will believe almost anything anyone says, no matter how outrageous (like David Wilcock).

It will be interesting when people do realize though, I bet you wont be able to find a gun on the shelf as soon as news breaks ( probably not the most rational reaction ).

My problem is that young people today have suddenly embraced this idea that if a scientist said it, then it must be so. And then parrot the claims of the only scientific side that they have been taught as being genuinely scientific.

Pretty broad brush there, but I think it mostly depends on education / intelligence / situation. How many people get a 2nd opinion on treatment for cancer? More people start to ask questions or think independently when death is on the line.

Aliens, not so much.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I didn't get a chance to get the second opinion on cancer, I had to be operated immediately.

Since when did it happen that we are waiting for the government to affirm anything for us? Why do we need an authority to tell us anything is real?

That's the problem, when people don't experience things, instead of investigating themselves, they wait for an authority figure to affirm or deny, what other people know.

This was the noblest Roman of them all: All the conspirators, save only he, Did that they did in envy of great Caesar; He, only in a general honest thought And common good to all, made one of them. Julius Caesar Act 5, scene 5, 68–72

originally posted by: KandinskyCondon's perspective is also understandable and so is Hynek's. They all appear to have acted in the ways they did because they all firmly believed they were doing the right thing at the time.

Very true. Just because someone is on the 'other' side of the argument does not mean they are bad. They may even lie for what they consider to be good reasons. Like Adamski said 'Don't knock the cia'. By this, I think, he meant that even though they are liars they believe they are doing the right thing. The plot thickens.

a reply to: EnPassant

Yeah, we don't have to like, or agree with, proponents of opposing views, but dismissing them is often a way of avoiding unwanted facts. I've also found that giving different camps a fairer hearing improves understanding and broadens knowledge. It can also sharpen our own views by exposure to other explanations.

A lot of 'debunkers' keep the company of 'debunkers' and 'believers' hang out with 'believers.' This creates an echo chamber of self-confirmation and perpetuates that hollow fallacy that the 'other side' are stupid, malign or deliberately misleading.

In reality, a lot of us are genuinely, sincerely intrigued and express it in different (often frustrating!) ways. : )

ETA - it's why I rarely indulge in the pissing contests anymore

a reply to: WarminIndy

Since when did it happen that we are waiting for the government to affirm anything for us? Why do we need an authority to tell us anything is real?

That's the problem, when people don't experience things, instead of investigating themselves, they wait for an authority figure to affirm or deny, what other people know.

I don't think it matters where the pics come from, govt or individual, the general public isn't going to believe it till those are in hand.

But even among the people here who have really looked into the subject, not everyone is convinced. Different people require different levels of evidence. Some people want the dots fairly close together before connecting them while others connect dots that imo clearly have nothing to do with each other.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: WarminIndy

Since when did it happen that we are waiting for the government to affirm anything for us? Why do we need an authority to tell us anything is real?

That's the problem, when people don't experience things, instead of investigating themselves, they wait for an authority figure to affirm or deny, what other people know.

I don't think it matters where the pics come from, govt or individual, the general public isn't going to believe it till those are in hand.

But even among the people here who have really looked into the subject, not everyone is convinced. Different people require different levels of evidence. Some people want the dots fairly close together before connecting them while others connect dots that imo clearly have nothing to do with each other.

You know, it is really funny that I really do not post in the UFO forum often and have never read much about UFOs. I have seen one myself so I don't wait for the government or science to tell me it was real.

I never spent much time reading about Project Blue Book even though I was born at the same time it was being reported. I grew up in that generation right after Kennedy's assassination. We were taught that good Americans believe their government, and yet the hippies didn't. They made themselves heard loudly.

Maybe it is because I am from that generation and time that I have more leeway into not believing any authority figure.

I want to know what other people saw, I want to hear their experiences. And I have noticed now, the skeptics are now in the minority, because too many people have witnessed and experienced unusual phenomenon. As much as the government would wish us not to know, the truth is too many people now have reported everything.

I cannot be a disbeliever now and I can't say that the large percentage of the world population that have seen things are wrong because our government denies it.

UFOs and remote viewing, two of the very phenomenon that became victims to spy games. For the US government to now admit UFOs are real, then no one would believe the government or scientific authority at all.

What then is the greatest threat posed to the establishment? The fact that people know. And the more you know.....

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And one member of the Condon Committee James MccDonald same out to say that Condon was not correct.

James McDonald was not a member of the Condon committee. Your source is in error.

originally posted by: muchmadness

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And one member of the Condon Committee James MccDonald same out to say that Condon was not correct.

James McDonald was not a member of the Condon committee. Your source is in error.

Maybe, but here is an FBI file on the man...
James Edward McDonald. The source simply got his name wrong.

He was investigated by the FBI for being anti-war and anti-Vietnam. Wow!. It gets deeper now.

The scientist who disputes the Condon Report ends up being investigated by the FBI? Kind of now gives credence to Condon being a paid disinfo agent. They went after McDonald for being anti-war, but mention in the file that he is rebutting the Condon Report? If it were simply about anti-Vietnam, then they would not have to mention the UFO evidence of McDonald.

Getting deeper.

Condon was without a doubt an intentional or unwitting disinfo agent.

Leslie Kean in her awesome book "UFO's: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials go on the record" lays out a very convincing case. In her book, available with permission online from nufors.com, you can read yourself, the part on Condon starts halfway down page 80. Here are some excerpts:

One leaked memo from the project:

Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by nonbelievers who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, 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 nonbelievers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.

Condon was infuriated that this was made public, and he fired the two staffers who had leaked the memo the day after he heard about it.

The following demonstrates the extreme bias Condon held, and demonstrates why any who adhere to the principles of the scientific method (in which bias is the kiss of death) should never take Condon seriously, at least about this subject:

Condon had no problem making his negative attitudes toward his subject public. In a January 1967 lecture he remarked, "It is my inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this business. My attitude right now is that there's nothing to it." He added, "But I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year."

Condon's two-page summary of the report, released to the press and public, actually contradicted the findings contained within the body of the volume, which most people did not bother to read.

In fact, Condon himself did not participate in the analysis of the carefully researched case studies that made up the bulk of the study, and it appears he also didn't bother to read the finished product. The lengthy study did provide some excellent scientific analysis by other members of the committee, buried among many tedious case analyses of marginal importance which dragged on, page after page. Other key cases were left out altogether. Some reports actually verified the reality of still unsolved and highly perplexing UFO phenomena. For example, investigator William K. Hartman, astronomer from the University of Arizona, researched two extraordinary photographs from McMinnville, Oregon, and stated that "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, disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within the sight of two witnesses."

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) was among those registering objections after its panel spent over a year studying the actual i,ooo-page text of the Condon report. The AIAA stated that Condon's summary did not reflect the report's conclusions but instead "discloses many of his [Condon's] personal conclusions." The AIAA scientists found no basis in the report for Condon's determination that further studies had no scientific value, but declared instead that "a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30% in the Report itself) should arouse sufficient curiosity to continue its study."

UFO's: Generals, Pilots and Government officials go on the record


The last sentence again:

"A PHENOMENON WITH SUCH A HIGH RATIO OF UNEXPLAINED CASES (30% FROM THE REPORT ITSELF!!!!) SHOULD AROUSE SUFFICIENT CURIOSITY TO CONTINUE THE STUDY".

I think all the members of ATS should know that when you quote Condon or the Condon report summary in relation to UFO's it means NOTHING.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I don't think anyone disagrees. The only question is what his motivation was.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I don't think anyone disagrees. The only question is what his motivation was.

Oh, okay, what do you think his motivation was?

I have seen the Condon report referenced quite a few times on ATS attempting to support some UFO skeptic's position, does that mean we can just link to this thread now to discredit that line of reasoning?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Kandinsky



This makes him a disinfo agent if he did little work, took the money and then released his opinion that they posed no threat. Even throughout his report, he seems to agree that there are UFOs, at the same time dismissing. But it was all on the premise that he already was debunking the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis (as he called it), when that wasn't even the prevailing attitude from the witnesses. All the witnesses said that they saw unidentified flying objects, then described them, but yet Condon is debunking an hypothesis that wasn't even brought up.

That is called Hegelian Dialectic, to give an answer for for a question that hasn't even been asked. That means disinformation.

Thread brings up some good points. However there may have indeed been an Extra Terrestrial element in the national discussion before Blue Book if only in popular cultural interpretation. And there were some authors of note before Blue Book that came from that direction.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Oh, okay, what do you think his motivation was?

So far the impression I get is that he was tasked with shutting the program down or he that he just wasn't interested in entertaining anything "paranormal". If you want to call that "disinformation" or alien cover up, I might disagree. I think it had more to do with budget concerns and that kind of thing. Admittedly, I haven't really dug into too deeply so my impression could change.

I have seen the Condon report referenced quite a few times on ATS attempting to support some UFO skeptic's position,

I believe you, maybe I just haven't noticed.

does that mean we can just link to this thread now to discredit that line of reasoning?

I have no problem discrediting the Condon report. To me its just historically interesting, not really something to reference as support for any position.