For UFO Study? - The Black Vault
For UFO Study? - The Black Vault
For UFO Study? - The Black Vault
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
AND. COMMENT<br />
unlikely to end, despite the Colorado ' (~*\<br />
. .<br />
report's massive documentation (it is L<br />
1485 pages long) and its undoubted X .<br />
contributions to an understanding of<br />
T TT?/TI Ow. J • /r~* Jt /r* • Tn« •» TS.T the <strong>UFO</strong> problem. Q _<br />
<strong>UFO</strong> <strong>Study</strong>: Condon Group Finds No ,<br />
One Of the greatest contributions of ;£r<br />
f ^r* *JL e *-^ A -r^ 'the study was to demonstrate that -^<br />
Of VlSltS frOni Ollter SpaCe<br />
much of the seemingly "hard" evidence S<br />
of <strong>UFO</strong>'s is not very hard at all, and<br />
... . that even the most experienced and re-<br />
. . sponsible observers can be fooled by<br />
<strong>The</strong> final report* of the first exten- were employed on small aspects of the what they see. This was well illustrated<br />
sive study of unidentified flying objects • problem. Investigators made field trips in a <strong>UFO</strong> scare that swept over Van-<br />
(<strong>UFO</strong>'s) was made public last week, to interview witnesses of alleged <strong>UFO</strong> denberg , Air <strong>For</strong>ce Base and various<br />
and it contained bad news for flying- sightings ("By all odds the most used Pacific Missile Range tracking installasaucer<br />
fans. <strong>The</strong> study, which was con- piece of physical equipment was the tions in the fall of 1967. It all started _./<br />
ducted by the University of Colorado tape recorder," Condon notes). <strong>The</strong>y one night when a missile-range official j *<br />
under Air <strong>For</strong>ce sponsorship, found also conducted historical research, re- spotted an object in the sky over the<br />
no convincing evidence that <strong>UFO</strong>'s are viewed the <strong>UFO</strong> literature, arranged -• ocean. He called another official 3 miles<br />
spacecraft from'another world. It also several ingenious laboratory tests, and away, who confirmed the sighting and<br />
recommended' against further large- called. in experts on radar, optics, me- who, in turn, called a third officer, who<br />
scale studies of <strong>UFO</strong>'s. teorology, and perception to help ex- also confirmed the sighting. <strong>The</strong> object .<br />
"Our general conclusion is that plain puzzling sightings. seemed to have colored lights, and<br />
:<br />
nothing has come from the study of <strong>The</strong> extensive investigation was com- seemed to be stationary, or perhaps<br />
<strong>UFO</strong>s in the past 21 years that has missioned by the Air <strong>For</strong>ce in the spinning. Tracking and search radars<br />
added to scientific knowledge," states hope that a study by independent sci- from Vandenberg and three other in-<br />
Edward U. Condon, the project's cmi- entists would quiet the persistent con- ' stallations were asked to look for the •<br />
nent scientific director. "Further ex- troversy over <strong>UFO</strong>'s, but no sooner ' object, and immediately reported dozens<br />
tensive study of <strong>UFO</strong>s probably can- had Condon's report been issued than of unidentified targets, some stationary,<br />
not be justified in the expectation that it was under attack. <strong>The</strong> National In-" some moving at speeds up to 80 knots.<br />
science will be advanced thereby." vestigations Committee on Aerial Phe- <strong>The</strong>n additional objects were spotted<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Study</strong>'s findings and recommcn- nomena (NICAP), an organization of visually— one appearing to move in<br />
dations, as well as its scope and mcth- <strong>UFO</strong> buffs, staged oppress conference in such an alarming way that an observer<br />
odology, were unequivocally endorsed Washington, D.C., and. produced two yelled "Duck!" In the heat of the mo- .<br />
by a special review panelt set up by scientists who vigorously criticized the ment, three flights of fighter planes<br />
the National Academy of Sciences, adequacy of the study and the validity were sent to investigate the situation,<br />
"We are unanimous in the opinion that of the conclusions drawn from it. One but none of the pilots saw anything.<br />
this has been a very creditable effort to . of the scientists was David R. Saunders, <strong>For</strong>tunately, the incident produced<br />
apply objectively the relevant tech-, a psychologist formerly associated with an unusual amount of hard instrument<br />
niques of science to the solution of the : the project, who has co-authored a data, more numbers than any other<br />
<strong>UFO</strong> problem," the panel asserted, paperback book, released last week to case in the Colorado files. <strong>The</strong> infor-<br />
"On the basis of present knowledge coincide With issuance of the Condon, mation included radar-generated data<br />
the least likely explanation of. <strong>UFO</strong>s report, entitled t/FOs? FES.' Where describing the behavior of the targets, .':,.<br />
is the hypothesis of 'extraterrestrial vis- the Condon Committee Went Wrong, as well as data on weather conditions<br />
itations by intelligent beings." <strong>The</strong> other was James E. McDonald, an and tape recordings of conversations<br />
<strong>The</strong> Colorado study is unquestion- atmospheric physicist from the Univer- between the pilots and their bases.<br />
ably the most thorough and sophisti- sity of Arizona, who believes the most Working with this windfall, specialists<br />
! cated investigation of the nebulous likely explanation of some <strong>UFO</strong>'s is from the Stanford Research Institute<br />
1 . <strong>UFO</strong> phenomenon ever conducted. It that they are of extraterrestrial origin. (SRI) and other facilities were able to<br />
ji: commenced in October 1966 and con- (<strong>For</strong> an account of previous battles be- identify most of the radar targets "be-<br />
\ tinued for about 2 years, at a cost in tween these men and Condon, see yond serious doubt," and they were<br />
excess of $500,000. <strong>The</strong> project in- Science, 26 July 1968.) able to make a plausible explanation of<br />
volved a total of 37 staff members, <strong>The</strong> two scientists and other parfici- the visual sightings. .<br />
some from the University of Colorado, pants in the press conference charged <strong>The</strong> experts concluded that an unsome<br />
from other universities or from that Condon was biased against the ex- usually strong temperature inversion<br />
government and private laboratories, traterrestrial hypothesis, that the Colo- provided favorable conditions for both<br />
plus numerous other specialists who rado group failed to investigate the visual and radar mirage effects; that<br />
-:-'•- "vast majority" of significant <strong>UFO</strong> the stationary targets, including<br />
A '£*%&*%tiFu^ifini^o£<br />
j, win be published shortly by Bantam Books;<br />
sightings, and that the report's conclu- visual observation that touched off the<br />
sions are not borne out by the evidence • whole incident, were probably mirages<br />
$l 't<strong>The</strong> panel, chaired by Gerald M. ciemcnce, in the body of the document. McDonof<br />
Yale University, former scientific director of ^ a] so claimed that the Academy<br />
of ships beyond the horizon; that the<br />
faster radar targets were almost cercrane,'David<br />
a M. Dcnn'ron? Wallace "ex Fcnn. n! panel was "not adequately prepared tainly birds, which radar operators had<br />
Keffer Hartline E R Hilgard, Mark Kac, Fran- tQ asscss» th e Colorado report.<br />
v<br />
not had Occasion to look for before;<br />
cis W. Reichelderfer, \Villiam W. Rubcy, C. D.<br />
• , , , .<br />
Shane, and Oswald o. vniard, Jr. Thus the <strong>UFO</strong>. controversy seems and that other radar targets were<br />
2«o . . 'SCIENCE, VOL.. 163'