Not available at the www at the moment, AFAIK.



  The UFO Report: Condon Study Falls Short
  Scientific Research, April 14, 1969, p 41.


Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects conducted by the
University of Colorado, edited by Daniel S. Gillmor (Bantam
Books, New York, 1969, $1.95 paperback, 965 pp)


  Reviewed by Robert M. L. Baker Jr.


This half-million-dollar, 965-page report probably represents
the ultimate case against the UFO "cult" - in fact, it was to be
the last scientific word on that controversial subject. But,
paradoxically, the report contains some evidence suggesting that
the UFO phenomenon should be studied further.

It is an unfortunate feature of the report that the most
provocative and unexplained UFO sightings are virtually hidden
between extensive discussions of explained cases and often
superfluous technical background material. For example, it is
not until page 164 that the first detailed study of a truly
interesting, unexplained sighting appears. In fact, the very
intriguing sightings made by several astronauts are buried
behind 85 percent of this section, most of which is concerned
with irrelevant details of astronautics.

Scientific reports are seldom burdened with detailed studies of
those blind alleys that produced little or no useful data - yet
the Cordon report shuffles explained and unexplained cases at
random, in what seems to be an almost contrived manner - and
this tactic copfuses or diverts all but the most dedicated
reader.

If after a preliminary investigation it appeared that some UFO
observations could not be easily explained, they should
nevertheless have been highlighted in some way. Then the
explained cases should have been appended in order to show how
an unexplained case might be rationalized through its similarity
to one that is already understood.

The real crux of the matter, finally, would be the analysis of
W. K. Hartmann, who discusses the question "Are
misinterpretation and misreporting sufficiently common as to
make credible the assertion that the entire UFO phenomenon, or
at least the residua of unidentified cases, is the result of
these processes (plus deliberate hoaxes) ?"

But where is Hartmann's crucial question finally treated ? It is
practically lost in mid-volume - on pages 567 to 590. A critical
conclusion is made there: that the truly unexplained sightings
total less than 2 percent of all UFO sightings. This, at least,
is a factual basis for many of Condon's preliminary remarks. But
Hartmann's analyses should have been expanded within the context
of unexplained sightings - not in the context of explained
cases.

Furthermore, there is presumably somewhere in this study a
detailed quantitative verification of Condon's contention that
"... no intelligent life elsewhere outside of our solar systems
has any possibility of visiting earth in the next 10,000 years."
But so far I have been unable to find any comprehensive analysis
to support that figure. It should have been recognized that the
10,000-year quarantine on the earth and Hartmann's statistics
are both vital aspects of this study as long as there are still
unexplained UFO sightings.

One can appreciate R.V. Jones's remark (page 932) that they
[UFOs] were either a fantasy or an incorrect identification or
a rare and unrecognized phenomenon and while I commend any
genuine search for new phenomena, little short of a tangible
relic would dispel my skepticism of flying saucers." However,
the counter-argument is that an incorrect identification of a
rare and unrecognized phenomenon may be the clue to the
discovery of a new phenomenon. These "new phenomena" need not
necessarily be classified as flying saucers transporting
intelligent extraterrestrial life; they could be some new form
of atmospheric plasma, entering comets, or similar oddities.

Indeed, it would seem to be of basic scientific value to
determine if there were a reasonably high probability that some
new phenomena are at work in the unexplained UFO observations.
The next logical step would be to see if a consistent pattern to
these observations exists, and then to provide a set of
hypotheses that might explain them.

Of course, the Condon group was not expected to provide such
hypotheses - but in view of its claim of insufficient data it
might have suggested new data-collection techniques for closing
this data gap.

In sum, the veracity of most of the study seems to be beyond
question - the Condon group has gathered and analyzed a
significant subset of the significant facts bearing on the UFO
question. Moreover, the group has presented important (although
hard to find) evidence that seems to justify scientific
investigation along many general and specialized frontiers.
Therefore, it is not the facts that are subject to criticism,
but rather their organization and interpretation.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert M. L. Baker Jr., 38, teaches at the Univ. of California
at Los Angeles and is a senior scientist at Computer Sciences
Corp. His specialty is aerospace dynamics.