Any Apologies to Carl Sagan?
John Cason
When Carl Sagan was dying, and following his death, there were a number of
mean-spirited posts from the UFO/Mars Face crowd expressing satisfaction or
even glee at his misfortune. Many cited the "McDaniel Report" and vilified
Sagan for things he said about the Face in his "Man in the Moon" article in
Parade magazine in 1985. I don't remember even one of those posts
indicating that the writer actually had a copy of the Parade article.
Reading McDaniel was all that was required for having a hard and bitter
opinion about Sagan and the Face.
The Parade article was hard to find and it took about 6 months to get a
copy, so I never responded to any of those posts. With the recent images
of the "face," I got out my copies of "Man in the Moon" and Section Eight
of the McDaniel Report, the part that attacked Sagan. Sagan's writing is
calm and reasonable, and McDaniel's seems to be guilty of every fault that
he saw in Sagan's article. Sagan said, "...This Martian sphinx looks
natural--not artificial, not a dead ringer for a human face--and probably
was sculpted by slow geological process over millions of years."
Has anyone posted an apology to Carl Sagan?
Kevin W. Parker
In article <01bd75d1$48553400$4e00...@negia.net.negia.net>, "John Cason"
<jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>> Reading McDaniel was all that was required for having a hard and bitter
>> opinion about Sagan and the Face.
>>
>> Has anyone posted an apology to Carl Sagan?
I believe McDaniel has a moderately gracious tribute to Sagan on his Web
site now.
--
"A thousand words are worth a picture, and they take less time to download."
Kevin W. Parker
John Cason
Kevin W. Parker <kevin....@tcs.wap.org> wrote:
> I believe McDaniel has a moderately gracious tribute to Sagan on his Web
> site now.
http://www.mcdanielreport.com/sagan.htm
McDaniel says that he is offering a critique of Sagan's remarks in
Demon-Haunted World as a memorial. Here are a few examples:
"...he also repeated much of the propaganda and rhetoric he used in his
1985 propaganda piece for Parade magazine..."
"...Sagan's final contribution to this debate suffers from strange
ambiguities and misleading innuendoes."
"...he chose to perpetuate the claim that the object is only 'half a face'
and that it 'looks natural'. This judgement ignores the unaccountable
presence of a 'pupil' in the left eye socket, apparent 'teeth' in the
mouth, the contiinuation of the mouth..., the second eye socket, and the
symmetrical lines of the 'headpiece' ..."
"...Dr. Sagan left credibility behind..."
"...Dr. Sagan's essay...repeats many of the same poorly researched facts
and misleading innuendoes..."
"...remarkable piece of disinformation..." [referring to the Parade
Magazine article]
Moderately gracious.
Robert Sutherland
Why apologize? I don't see the point. I've nothing against Sagan and
never wrote any nasty letters to him; but why, when the photos the
Surveyor has taken confirm the artificial creation of the face?
Sherilyn
In article <6iilpo$d...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>, Robert Sutherland <obi-
w...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Why apologize? I don't see the point. I've nothing against Sagan and
>never wrote any nasty letters to him; but why, when the photos the
>Surveyor has taken confirm the artificial creation of the face?
Oh really? <smirk>
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Kevin W. Parker
In article <01bd76c9$463dc800$cf00...@negia.net.negia.net>, "John Cason"
<jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>> Kevin W. Parker <kevin....@tcs.wap.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I believe McDaniel has a moderately gracious tribute to Sagan on his Web
>> > site now.
>>
>> http://www.mcdanielreport.com/sagan.htm
>>
>>
>> McDaniel says that he is offering a critique of Sagan's remarks in
>> Demon-Haunted World as a memorial. Here are a few examples:
>>
>> "...Sagan's final contribution to this debate suffers from strange
>> ambiguities and misleading innuendoes."
>> "...Dr. Sagan left credibility behind..."
[etc.]
>>
>> Moderately gracious.
You're right--I just looked at the top of the page and didn't read the
article in detail. Obviously, it's not at all gracious.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
obi...@ix.netcom.com (Robert Sutherland ) wrote:
>Why apologize? I don't see the point. I've nothing against Sagan and
>never wrote any nasty letters to him; but why, when the photos the
>Surveyor has taken confirm the artificial creation of the face?
ROTFLMAO!
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence.
Mike Combs
John Cason wrote:
>
> When Carl Sagan was dying, and following his death, there were a number of
> mean-spirited posts from the UFO/Mars Face crowd expressing satisfaction or
> even glee at his misfortune. Many cited the "McDaniel Report" and vilified
> Sagan for things he said about the Face in his "Man in the Moon" article in
> Parade magazine in 1985.
No reason to expect an apology from folks incapable of acknowledging
that they were ever wrong. But I can tell you what I did in tribute.
In my office now hangs the new "Face" photo. Underneath is a quote:
"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."
Carl Sagan
The strange thing is, the quote is NOT in reference to the Face. It's
in reference to the Martian Canals, which were at one time widely
believed in, but now are universally acknowleged as a cultural illusion.
It just goes to show the more things change, the more they stay the
same, and that those who don't learn from history are condemned to
repeat it.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember, the Borg are people too... well, partly...
Chris Krolczyk
"John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> writes:
>When Carl Sagan was dying, and following his death, there were a number of
>mean-spirited posts from the UFO/Mars Face crowd expressing satisfaction or
>even glee at his misfortune.
Not to change the subject, but some of the posts from fundamentalist/
creationist Christians that expressed glee at Sagan's demise on this
and other newsgroups were just as nauseating.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCE: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
LDK - Vangelis Kritikos
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> Not to change the subject, but some of the posts from fundamentalist/
> creationist Christians that expressed glee at Sagan's demise on this
> and other newsgroups were just as nauseating.
>
You will find some interested (I think from a psyciatric point of view)
"opinions" on Dr. Sagan's death in the following link:
http://www.why.net/users/dgreen/theoarc/theo9612/0866.html
Perhaps you have seen them since they are rather old. In any case you
have to have a hard stomach to read them...
Regards
Vangelis
John Cason
Cluster sent this to a.a.v. and a.p.u., but dropped sci.skeptic:
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote in article
<354f57ec...@news.cis.yale.edu>...
> On 4 May 1998 15:06:37 -0500, krol...@MCS.COM (Chris Krolczyk) wrote:
> >"John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> writes:
> >>When Carl Sagan was dying, and following his death, there were a number
of
> >>mean-spirited posts from the UFO/Mars Face crowd expressing
satisfaction or
> >>even glee at his misfortune.
> Certainly that isn't nice. But I can understand the anger- in the end,
> Sagan used his high-profile reputation to launch what essentialy
> amounted to a "spin" campaign against anything that threatened his
> view of reality. He made the same mistake as any religious leader- He
> believed his personal view of science was *the* universal view.
> >Not to change the subject, but some of the posts from fundamentalist/
> >creationist Christians that expressed glee at Sagan's demise on this
> >and other newsgroups were just as nauseating.
> Sagan may not have been christian, but he certainly was a
> fundamentalist. And while he restricted himself to effete language, I
> doubt his attacks on other people's religions were any better than
> theirs on his.
> I actually liked the man. Even though in the end he did everything in
> his power to compromise science. He tried to put blinders on science,
> and tried to subjectify the criteria for evidence with the sole
> purpose of excluding evidence that pointed the "wrong direction."
> So what was to like? I greatly respected his stand and courage on
> nuclear issues, and also his early career was full of gutsy,
> imaginative, brilliant conjecture. He wrote some inspiring books.
Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A.
A Response to Carl Sagan's 'Scientific American' Essay, "Life in the Universe" by
Stanton Friedman
For decades, Carl Sagan has waxed poetic about life in outer space. In most
instances, such as in his very popular TV series and book "Cosmos," and in many taped TV
snippets such as the October 1, 1994, "Larry King Live," two-hour special, he takes
derogatory swipes at the notion that intelligent life is visiting earth. Never does he
refer to the five large scientific studies about UFOs, more than 10 Ph.D. thesis, and
hundreds of papers by scientists like me, Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D., Robert M. Wood, Ph.D.,
and others. Unlike Carl, we have been seriously investigating the UFO phenomenon instead
of doing Sagan-type UFO research by proclamation.
His latest article, "The Search for Extraterrestrial Life," is part of a special
issue of 'Scientific American' devoted to life in the universe. As might be expected,
there is no discussion of ET visitors or interstellar travel.
Sagan's article presents an excellent overview of the impact of biological and
chemical life on the externally observable characteristics of a planet. He reviews the
four different observations (see below) made by our Galileo spacecraft as it got a free
kick toward Jupiter from the earth's gravitational field. He notes that of these four,
all but the observation of orderly radio signals could have been noted by any passing
probe within the last two billion years. He further notes the many indications that
organic molecules seem to be present all over the place, including interstellar space.
So far so good. To me, this would seem to indicate that Earth may have been under
observation for a billion years after nearby civilizations detected obvious signs of
biological life.
Unfortunately, and certainly unscientifically, Sagan then claims "the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence is an attempt to use large radio telescopes, sophisticated
receivers, and modern data analysis to detect hypothetical signals sent our way by
advanced civilizations on planets around other stars." Most of the article is concerned
with life, as opposed to intelligent life. He might have said that the use of radio
telescopes is just one way to search for extraterrestrial intelligence, but his
definition excludes all far more reasonable approaches for which we have an enormous data
base.
For example, based on worldwide visual and radar observations of very-high
performance clearly manufactured craft passing through the atmosphere, hovering, landing,
abducting earthlings, leaving physical traces (that can be later studied) at the landing
sites, overwhelming evidence exists that some UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.
There is also, of course, an enormous amount of data establishing not only that two alien
spacecraft crashed in New Mexico in 1947, but that some few government employees are well
aware of the alien visitations.
Sagan is casually assuming that radio, about which we have known for less than 150
years in a universe at least 10 billion years old, is the most advanced means of
interstellar communication!! Obviously, radio telescopes cannot detect laser signals or
those from any other advanced communications technique. He notes that our space probes
have already examined 70 planets, satellites, comets, asteroids, etc., in less than 40
years. How many by the year 3000??
One must put some facts in the hopper: First, it seems clear that some stars are
literally many billions of years older than the sun. Second, as Sagan summarized well,
there are good reasons for expecting planets and life to be abundant in the universe
since apparently it takes less than one billion years for life of some kind to establish
itself. Third, technological progress in all fields, almost invariable comes from doing
things differently in an unpredictable way and is not an extrapolation of the past.
Lasers aren't just better light bulbs, nuclear rockets aren't just better chemical
rockets, micro-integrated circuits are not just small vacuum tubes. And finally,
therefore, one expects that there will be civilizations that long ago developed far
better means of communication and space travel than we have in our short high-tech
history.
Look at the technological progress over the past few hundred years. More than 30
years ago, I worked on nuclear fusion propulsion systems using fusion processes similar
to those by which all stars make most of their energy. Using appropriate techniques, one
can expel particles out of the back end of a fusion rocket having 10 million times as
much energy per particle as in a chemical rocket. In a short time we have gone from
around the world in 80 days in a balloon to around the world in 90 minutes in the Space
Shuttle.
Unfortunately, the article serves as a kind of manifesto for the cult of SETI, the
acronym that stands for "Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence." (A better definition
might be "Silly Effort to Investigate.") Sagan mentions how he and Paul Horowitz, a
Harvard physics professor, detected a handful of candidate radio signals after five years
of continuous sky survey and two years of follow-up by the project known as Megachannel
Extraterrestrial Array. He discusses some fascinating experiments of attempts to
recreate in the lab the strange compounds found in the atmosphere of Saturn's giant moon,
Titan. Just think what a similar effort could tell us about radar tracking of UFOs,
analysis of landing trace cases, UFO abductions, etc. There is more than a handful of
strong UFO cases.
Some might wonder at my use of the term "cult." But what are the characteristics of
a cult?
Charismatic leadership: certainly, this is provided by Sagan, Drake, Tartar, and
others of their group, who often vociferously, and without knowledge or reference to
data, attack ufology and extol the virtues of the radio telescope search.
Strong dogma: Summarized, this means there is life all over the place out there.
According to SETI, some of it is much more advanced than our young civilization and is
trying to attract our attention using radio signals that SETI specialists will make easy
for us to record and translate. When we join the galactic radio network, SETI will then
transmit to us all the secrets of the universe.
Strong resistance to outside ideas: As opposed to studying and evaluating the huge
array of UFO-related data, SETI cultists constantly use the three major tool of
debunkers: (1). What the public doesn't know, we won't tell them. (2). Don't bother me
with the facts--my mind is made up. (3). If one can't attack the data, attack the
people.
Sagan's incredibly unscientific and inaccurate 1993 article about UFO abductions in
Parade Magazine and the Dec. 1995 article about crop circles also in Parade Magazine, are
outstanding examples of this pseudoscientific approach, as noted in my 12-page
single-space critique.
Exaggerated notion of the cult's importance to the world: The radio telescope guys
will detect and decode signals from outer space. They will disclose to mankind all the
secrets of the universe. Viva la radio telescope and the Science of SETI!!
Obviously, if alien spacecraft are visiting Earth, landing, occasionally crashing at
locations near Corona and in the Plains of San Augustin in New Mexico, monitoring our
aircraft and space flights, examining specimens of Earth's fauna and flora, then who
needs SETI!? The emperor is wearing no clothes. The case for Sagan-type SETI and
against ufology is bare of reason.
I am reminded of the person who has just learned a bit about the strange game of
baseball. He finds out that striking out is nonproductive, whereas getting a walk, a
single, a double, a triple, or especially a home run, is very productive. He then
presumes that the worst players are those who strike out the most. The record shows that
the five players who struck out the most and therefore were the worst in the history of
baseball are Mantle, Killebrew, Mays, Robinson and Mathews. Because he looks no farther,
he doesn't know these five are among the most productive batters in the history of the
game in spite of all their strike-outs.
Yes, most UFO sightings can be explained, most isotopes are not fissionable, and most
people aren't seven feet tall. But some people are seven feet tall, some isotopes are
fissionable, and some UFOs are intelligently controlled ET spaceships, even if the alien
mission specialists don't ask for an appointment with Carl Sagan.
In late 1992, I spent an hour with Carl, and on October 11, 1994, I challenged him
in writing to a debate on UFOs, perhaps with Larry King moderating. I have had a tiny
response, but not yet about a debate, although Carl and I were classmates at the
University of Chicago for three years. Carl has never displayed any willingness to
defend his anti-ufological proclamations against the onslaught of somebody knowledgeable.
Research by Proclamation is the way of the Cult of SETI.
------Four sign of life on earth detected by the Galileo spacecraft: 1) Indications of an
abundance of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere. 2) Light bands indicating chlorophyll
covering most of earth's land area (found nowhere else in the solar system.) 3) Traces
of methane in extreme disequilibrium with the amount of oxygen, indicating unusual
processes (including bacterial metabolism) to replenish methane. 4) Certain radio
emissions that strongly suggest the presence of a technological civilization.
---------
"Michael Reynolds" <mre...@news.symantec.com>
wrote on Dec. 23, 1996
Carl Sagan was caught red handed altering data to support his argument
in an attack against Dr. Hoagland, and when gathering the data from Dr.
Hoagland, he claimed he was collecting data for a journal article, rather
than the Parade magazine article it actually went into. I saw him in a
debate with Dr. Stanton Freidman, and he had absolutely no professional
courtesy and he was not arguing the evidence. He was using what have
become a standard set of pseudo-scientific argumentation, that is easily
picked to pieces, but not in the time frame of a the media sound bites.
The arguments are all based on hypothetical reasons for dismissing
all anomalous data with out any consideration of the evidence, and
his legacy is alive and well, with scientists spouting off such
unscientific reasoning on this forum right and left.
bdze...@primenet.com (Brian Zeiler) wrote on Dec. 20, 1996:
Here's my $.02 on the subject. Although Sagan was obviously a
USAF/CIA point guard like Menzel, I still had a warm spot for the guy,
which dates back to my interest in astronomy as a kid, before I got
into UFOs and observed his duplicity. I enjoyed Cosmos and read a few
of his books, including _Dragons of Eden_. His passion for astronomy
definitely rubbed off on the public. He, more than anybody, elevated
the public's interest in astronomy, conveyed the necessity for space
exploration, and introduced to the public the rational scientific
arguments for why alien life is likely to exist. He was a good
speaker and a superb writer, with a flair for not only communicating
technical aspects in a readable manner, but for also interweaving his
admirable imagination and his own sense of awe with the universe.
In that regard, Sagan was a great guy who served the public's
interest, and I'll miss his little sound bites on the news at night
when new discoveries are made, as well as his philosophizing on the
universe. It's just unfortunate that he really was a spook like
Menzel who knew damned well what was going on with the UFO situation.
Sagan, who attended Harvard under Menzel back in the 1960s, was phased
in just as Menzel was phased out and died. Sagan used to argue that
alien visitation was likely back in 1962, but then he began calling it
"ludicrous". He was rumored to have participated in the DIA's "UFO
Working Group" by Blum, who described perfectly the infamous nuclear
sub DIA remote viewing session with Swann/Puthoff years before the
program was declassified, which allowed Puthoff and Swann to confirm
the accuracy of Blum's account and the fact that Blum was allowed into
the room to witness the session for his book, which would be published
as part disinformation and part disclosure under the umbrella of
"plausible deniability". So if Blum was totally accurate and truthful
in that confirmed instance, could he have been lying about the DIA's
UFO Working Group with Sagan? I highly doubt it.
A figurehead and opinion leader is necessary to dampen scientific
interest in the subject, since it is their opinion to which the media
and hences the public will appeal. And my guess is that the Company
doesn't give out job offers that can be easily refused -- $$$, power,
and most of all, the knowledge, were probably what locked Sagan into
their grip. To a serious scientist, knowledge can persuade better
than money or threats. And perhaps they told him a few things that
argued against the feasibility of total disclosure.
Still, he did indeed manage to relentlessly bash the subject of UFOs
whenever and wherever possible, and for his sake, let's hope that
science historians down the line will choose to emphasize the good
things he did rather than the seemingly bad. And let's also not
condemn him for his duplicity until we really know the reasons for
secrecy, whenever that may be.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A." <smqc...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>A Response to Carl Sagan's 'Scientific American' Essay, "Life in the Universe" by
>Stanton Friedman
>
> For decades, Carl Sagan has waxed poetic about life in outer space. In most
>instances, such as in his very popular TV series and book "Cosmos," and in many taped TV
>snippets such as the October 1, 1994, "Larry King Live," two-hour special, he takes
>derogatory swipes at the notion that intelligent life is visiting earth.
Because Friedman has no decent evidence for this claim.
Except Gerald Anderson.
Oops! Gerald Anderson admitted he hoaxed documents!
And, document examiners have shown that the other documents
are also hoaxes.
>Never does he
>refer to the five large scientific studies about UFOs,
Is Friedman referring to the Condon Committee, the Robertson
Panel, the O'Brien Committee, the CIA study Panel, and Blue
Book?
They all decided that there was nothing worth investigating
in them.
> more than 10 Ph.D. thesis,
<snigger> Wow! All of ten of them. Golly, that is
certainly impressive!
Of course, one of them used MacDonald's personal papers to
show that MacDonald deliberately set out to subvert the
Condon Committee because they were coming out with a
conclusion that MacDonald didn't like.
>and
>hundreds of papers by scientists like me,
Like the one where you finally admitted that Gerald Anderson
wasn't trustworthy?
Or the ones in which you ignored all the evidence and pushed
the MJ-12 hoax?
>Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D.
Ah, old Gulf Breeze himself!
>, Robert M. Wood, Ph.D.,
>and others. Unlike Carl,
Who has served on the O'Brien committee, etc.
>we have been seriously investigating the UFO phenomenon instead
>of doing Sagan-type UFO research by proclamation.
Seriously investigating?
Let's see:
Friedman has attacked Kent Jeffrey At:
http://home.clara.net/chipp/kent.html
because he believes that the reasons Jeffrey gives for not
believing in Roswell are bogus. Regarding the Top Secret
Analysis which doesn’t address any physical evidence and
makes the point that the UFOs are either US or Soviet,
Friedman states that:
"Only one document, as it happens, was TOP SECRET and it
dealt with "Analysis of Incidents", not analysis of
wreckage; two very different areas of technological
investigation."
What Friedman neglects to state in his sophistry is that the
purpose of the Top Secret analysis is:
TO EXAMINE (sic) pattern of "Flying Saucers" (hereinafter
referred to as flying objects) and to develop conclusions as
to the possibility of existence.
So, to determine if they exist, according to Friedman, it
isn’t necessary to know about physical evidence and thus the
analysts wouldn’t have been told about crash debris from
Roswell!
And, there are more than one top secret document!
The Memo to the Secretary, Joint Intelligence Committee
comes immediately to mind.
>
> His latest article, "The Search for Extraterrestrial Life," is part of a special
>issue of 'Scientific American' devoted to life in the universe. As might be expected,
>there is no discussion of ET visitors or interstellar travel.
Considering that there is no decent evidence, why should
there be?
[...]
> Unfortunately, and certainly unscientifically,
Only to the money-grubbing mind of Friedman!
>Sagan then claims "the search for
>extraterrestrial intelligence is an attempt to use large radio telescopes, sophisticated
>receivers, and modern data analysis to detect hypothetical signals sent our way by
>advanced civilizations on planets around other stars." Most of the article is concerned
>with life, as opposed to intelligent life. He might have said that the use of radio
>telescopes is just one way to search for extraterrestrial intelligence,
It is the only scientific search going on now. Soon, if
NASA has its way, there will be others.
>but his
>definition excludes all far more reasonable approaches for which we have an enormous data
>base.
Yes. An enormous data base of garbage.
Where did the spacecraft crash at Roswell?
Friedman said it was the Plains. He based this on Gerald
Anderson and the (at best) second-hand stories of Barnett.
Gerald Anderson has admitted hoaxing at least one document
and document examiners say he hoaxed the rest.
Barnett's widow's diary shows that Barnett wasn't anywhere
near the Plains when the incident supposedly happened.
Wow! That is impressive evidence!
[...]
>There is also, of course, an enormous amount of data establishing not only that two alien
>spacecraft crashed in New Mexico in 1947
Friedman says two spacecraft, Randle says one, Moore says he
was only joking and it probably never happened, Jeffrey says
it never happened, Pflock says it never happened, Todd says
it never happened, the evidence says it probably never
happened!
What Friedman is ignoring is that the evidence consists of
lies, distortions, hoaxed documents, and conflicting
memories.
Friedman claims that a spacecraft crashed on the Plains.
Friedman claims that the MJ-12 documents are real.
Those two statements are in conflict! The MJ-12 documents
claim that only one spacecraft crashed.
<snip of the rest of this self-serving advertisement for
Friedman!>
Hey, Doc Frager, why is you not claiming to be Doc Frager?
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>Never does he
>>refer to the five large scientific studies about UFOs,
>
>Is Friedman referring to the Condon Committee, the Robertson
>Panel, the O'Brien Committee, the CIA study Panel, and Blue
>Book?
>
>They all decided that there was nothing worth investigating
>in them.
Nah, Twitch is just citing opinions he likes without caring if there's
any truth or validity to them. Here is how Dr. Thorton Page looked
back at the Robertson Panel and his own participation in it:
"In retrospect, this writer [T. Page] sees a few misconceptions
in the panel's discussion and report. The panel underestimated
the long duration of public interest in UFOs, which also puzzles
sociologists, and overestimated the astronomers' photographic
coverage of the sky. Although the panel did not go as far as
Condon, it also tended to ignore the five percent or ten percent
of UFO reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been
explained."
As for the Condon report, just about every committee member, sans
Condon and Low (of course), supported further investigation. Twitch
cites Ed Condon's personal conclusions and tried to pass them off
as representing the entire Committee's opinion (nice trick, it worked
in 1969!) when it's not. Page, by the way, has also characterized the
Condon study as "unscientific" and "inconsistent."
I leave it to the reader's imagination why Twitch would be citing these
reports uncritically, even to the point of ignoring important content. I
think the answer to that question is pretty straightforward.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________
John Cason
Quoting authorities Stan Friedman, Mike Reynolds, and Brian Zeiler, Doc
Frager (Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A.) showed once again that he can't evaluate
evidence:
smqc...@cyberhighway.net wrote in article
<6iom40$8p0$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>:
> A Response to Carl Sagan's 'Scientific American' Essay, "Life in the
Universe" by
> Stanton Friedman
<Friedman snipped> Dealt with by Twitch.
> "Michael Reynolds" <mre...@news.symantec.com>
> wrote on Dec. 23, 1996
Mike used to get hassled because 99% of his references were to TV shows,
but that would still put him far ahead of some of today's UFO posters.
> Carl Sagan was caught red handed altering data to support
> his argument in an attack against Dr. Hoagland,
IIRC, Mike said that he read the McDaniel Report one day at the UCLA
library. McDaniel claimed that Sagan replaced some of the gray scale with
red in the Mars "face" photo in his 1985 Parade Magazine article, where he
had the nerve to suggest that the "face" was a chance occurrence rather
than a veritable Martian sphinx. McDaniel's unsubstantiated charge was
morphed by Mike into being "caught red-handed altering data." My copy of
the 1985 article is a black-and-white copy, and the 'face' looks the same
as the usual version on the web. Mike never backed up his claim in any
way.
> and when gathering the data from Dr. Hoagland, he
> claimed he was collecting data for a journal article, rather
> than the Parade magazine article it actually went into.
Read Section Eight of the McDaniel Report. Mike twisted what McDaniel
wrote that Hoagland claimed that Sagan said. Can you follow that, Frager?
Reynolds said the data came from Hoagland. McDaniel said that that Sagan
obtained the originals from NASA and color was added by the Spacecraft
Planetary Imaging Facility at Stanford. Note 15 says that Mark Carlotto
agreed that a facility such as Stanford would have had to alter the color.
Reynolds and McDaniel don't agree, other than that they didn't like Sagan
and there had to be a good reason somewhere if they could only find it.
<snip>
> bdze...@primenet.com (Brian Zeiler) wrote on Dec. 20, 1996:
> Here's my $.02 on the subject. Although Sagan was obviously
> a USAF/CIA point guard like Menzel...
...
> It's just unfortunate that he really was a spook like Menzel
> who knew damned well what was going on with the UFO situation.
...
> Sagan, who attended Harvard under Menzel back in the 1960s, was
> phased in just as Menzel was phased out and died.
...
> He was rumored to have participated in the DIA's
> "UFO Working Group" by Blum
...
> could he have been lying about the DIA's
> UFO Working Group with Sagan? I highly doubt it.
...
> And my guess is that the Company doesn't
> give out job offers that can be easily refused -- $$$, power,
> and most of all, the knowledge, were probably what locked Sagan
> into their grip. To a serious scientist, knowledge can persuade
> better than money or threats. And perhaps they told him a few
> things that argued against the feasibility of total disclosure.
So Brian argued that Sagan was well connected with the people (USAF, CIA,
DIA) who have all that famous unseen evidence, that he knew damned well
what was going on, that he had a lot of Knowledge.
Unfortunately, within days of the post that Frager quoted, Brian also
argued with himself:
Dec. 21, 1996, in <32cccebf...@news.primenet.com>:
"...Sagan was incapable of handling a rigid UFO debate due to his vast
ignorance of the subject matter."
Dec. 21, 1996, in <32c481ab...@news.primenet.com>:
"Sagan said numerous factually incorrect things which not only exposed his
vast ignorance of the UFO evidence..."
Dec. 22, 1996, in <32cfe080...@news.primenet.com>:
"...Sagan argued from ignorance of the data."
[responding in the same post to the previous poster's claim that Sagan had
"affiliations with numerous groups that had access to UFO data"]:
"No, he did not. Prove me wrong by showing what 'access' he had as well as
what 'affiliations he had with numerous groups' he had."
Brian forgot about the USAF, CIA, and DIA that he mentioned only two days
earlier.
Frager, Friedman, Reynolds, and Zeiler disliked Sagan because he didn't
share their little fantasy. Any reasons they cited were ad hoc, and who
cares if there's no consistency. They didn't like him.
Aaron LeClair
Jean van gemert wrote:
> In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> >>Never does he
> >>refer to the five large scientific studies about UFOs,
> >
> >Is Friedman referring to the Condon Committee, the Robertson
> >Panel, the O'Brien Committee, the CIA study Panel, and Blue
> >Book?
> >
> >They all decided that there was nothing worth investigating
> >in them.
>
> Nah, Twitch is just citing opinions he likes without caring if there's
> any truth or validity to them. Here is how Dr. Thorton Page looked
> back at the Robertson Panel and his own participation in it:
>
> "In retrospect, this writer [T. Page] sees a few misconceptions
> in the panel's discussion and report. The panel underestimated
> the long duration of public interest in UFOs, which also puzzles
> sociologists, and overestimated the astronomers' photographic
> coverage of the sky. Although the panel did not go as far as
> Condon, it also tended to ignore the five percent or ten percent
> of UFO reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been
> explained."
>
> As for the Condon report, just about every committee member, sans
> Condon and Low (of course), supported further investigation. Twitch
> cites Ed Condon's personal conclusions and tried to pass them off
> as representing the entire Committee's opinion (nice trick, it worked
> in 1969!) when it's not. Page, by the way, has also characterized the
> Condon study as "unscientific" and "inconsistent."
>
> I leave it to the reader's imagination why Twitch would be citing these
> reports uncritically, even to the point of ignoring important content. I
> think the answer to that question is pretty straightforward.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
> http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
> ____________________________________________________________________________
Wasn't Macdonald and Keyhoe involved, and a couple of the people who objected?
I got some of it on tape. Atleast I think it's related to the Condon commitee, I
know they are talking about it, and it looks like a hearing of sorts.
Jean van gemert
In article, Aaron LeClair wrote:
> Wasn't Macdonald and Keyhoe involved, and a couple of the people who
> objected?
Yes.
>I got some of it on tape. Atleast I think it's related to the Condon commitee,
> I know they are talking about it, and it looks like a hearing of sorts.
It's probably a NICAP press conference you're looking at, right after the
Condon report had been released.
Aaron LeClair
Yea, that might be it.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>>Never does he
>>>refer to the five large scientific studies about UFOs,
>>
>>Is Friedman referring to the Condon Committee, the Robertson
>>Panel, the O'Brien Committee, the CIA study Panel, and Blue
>>Book?
>>
>>They all decided that there was nothing worth investigating
>>in them.
>
> Nah, Twitch is just citing opinions he likes without caring if there's
> any truth or validity to them.
Please post some evidence for this claim.
>Here is how Dr. Thorton Page looked
> back at the Robertson Panel and his own participation in it:
>
> "In retrospect, this writer [T. Page] sees a few misconceptions
> in the panel's discussion and report. The panel underestimated
> the long duration of public interest in UFOs, which also puzzles
> sociologists, and overestimated the astronomers' photographic
> coverage of the sky. Although the panel did not go as far as
> Condon, it also tended to ignore the five percent or ten percent
> of UFO reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been
> explained."
Let's see, the panel underestimated public interest, etc.
Nothing in that quote which differs from what I said!
>
> As for the Condon report, just about every committee member, sans
> Condon and Low (of course), supported further investigation.
Let's see, How about Craig?
> Twitch
> cites Ed Condon's personal conclusions and tried to pass them off
> as representing the entire Committee's opinion
More of Jean's citing opinions he likes without caring if
there's any truth or validity to them.
"…we confronted Dr. Condon with the question of what would
happen if we who were doing the investigations of UFO
reports were to come to conclusions which differed from his
own. We were, at that time, specifically concerned about
possible differences regarding the validity of the
extraterrestrial hypothesis. Dr. Condon had pointed out
that we were completely free to seek out any evidence that
extraterrestrial vehicles are or have been visiting our
planet, and to pursue our leads in any manner we thought
promising. If we could come up with convincing evidence,
and could therewith convince him of the validity of the ETI
hypothesis, that would be his, and the project’s, report."
"I pointed out to Norm, Dr. Condon had assured us that OUR
findings and conclusions would be represented effectively in
the final report - whether or not they coincided with his
own conclusions."
(Emphasis in original)
"At the end of our all-day discussion, we did not know what
Dr. Condon would write as "recommendations." We were
confident, however, that those recommendations would reflect
the actual findings of the Colorado Project (Condon
Committee)"
>(nice trick, it worked
> in 1969!) when it's not. Page, by the way, has also characterized the
> Condon study as "unscientific" and "inconsistent."
Of course, the National Academy of Sciences didn't think so!
The National Academy of sciences decided to not only review
the Condon Report but got papers on the subject from
technically competent skeptics and believers. Dr. James
McDonald had three papers considered by the NAS Panel
reviewing the Condon Report.
So, the NAS Panel didn’t just review the Condon Report but
reviewed it against the best that could be provided by
believers and skeptics.
The National Academy of Sciences Panel came to the
conclusion that the scope of the study was adequate to
perform a proper scientific study of the UFO phenomena.
The National Academy of Sciences Panel came to the
conclusion that:
"We think that the methodology and approach were well
chosen, in accordance with accepted standards of scientific
investigation."
The National Academy of Sciences Panel concurred with the
findings and evaluations of the Condon Committee and with
the recommendation regarding the termination of Project Blue
Book and treatment of proposals by qualified scientists for
funding and support for future UFO research on an equal
basis with other research proposals!
"We are unanimous in the opinion that this has been a very
creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant
techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem."
Which is a very strong statement of support!
This is further backed up by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science in their magazine Science:
"The Colorado Study is unquestionably the most thorough and
sophisticated investigation of the nebulous UFO phenomenon
ever conducted."
The magazine agreed with and quoted Dr. Condon in asserting
that proving that UFOs were really vehicles from another
world would be the greatest single scientific discovery in
the history of mankind!
In this five part series, I have shown that, contrary to
what is usually stated about the Condon Committee, they did
a open, unbiased, respected scientific study and came to
rational and defensible conclusions and recommendations.
Dr. Condon wrote of his frustrations regarding the
treacherous, disloyal, and dishonest conduct of some of the
believers both on the project and off of it when he wrote:
"I had some awareness of the passionate controversy that
swirled around the subject, contributing added difficulty to
the task of making a dispassionate study...Had I known of
the extent of the emotional commitment of the UFO believers
and the extremes of conduct to which their faith can lead
them, I certainly would never have undertaken the study."
THE NATION in an editorial declared, "If Dr. Condon and his
associates come up with anything less than the little green
men from Mars, they will be crucified."
They did and they were!
>
> I leave it to the reader's imagination why Twitch would be citing these
> reports uncritically, even to the point of ignoring important content. I
> think the answer to that question is pretty straightforward.
Yes. Unlike Jean, twitch has actually read something other
than Saunders and the like.
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
> Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
which you won't find listening to Jean.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>Quoting authorities Stan Friedman, Mike Reynolds, and Brian Zeiler, Doc
>Frager (Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A.) showed once again that he can't evaluate
>evidence:
>
<snip of some beautiful arguments by John to save bandwidth.
If you haven't read the rest of John' comments, please do!)
>> bdze...@primenet.com (Brian Zeiler) wrote on Dec. 20, 1996:
>
>> Here's my $.02 on the subject. Although Sagan was obviously
>> a USAF/CIA point guard like Menzel...
>...
>> It's just unfortunate that he really was a spook like Menzel
>> who knew damned well what was going on with the UFO situation.
>...
>> Sagan, who attended Harvard under Menzel back in the 1960s, was
>> phased in just as Menzel was phased out and died.
>...
>> He was rumored to have participated in the DIA's
>> "UFO Working Group" by Blum
>...
>> could he have been lying about the DIA's
>> UFO Working Group with Sagan? I highly doubt it.
>...
>> And my guess is that the Company doesn't
>> give out job offers that can be easily refused -- $$$, power,
>> and most of all, the knowledge, were probably what locked Sagan
>> into their grip. To a serious scientist, knowledge can persuade
>> better than money or threats. And perhaps they told him a few
>> things that argued against the feasibility of total disclosure.
>
>So Brian argued that Sagan was well connected with the people (USAF, CIA,
>DIA) who have all that famous unseen evidence, that he knew damned well
>what was going on, that he had a lot of Knowledge.
Of course, Brian and Jean both push Maccabee. Macabee has
written reports on UFOs for the CIA!
So, by Brian's logic, Maccabee is untrustworthy!
>
>Unfortunately, within days of the post that Frager quoted, Brian also
>argued with himself:
>
>Dec. 21, 1996, in <32cccebf...@news.primenet.com>:
>"...Sagan was incapable of handling a rigid UFO debate due to his vast
>ignorance of the subject matter."
>
>Dec. 21, 1996, in <32c481ab...@news.primenet.com>:
>"Sagan said numerous factually incorrect things which not only exposed his
>vast ignorance of the UFO evidence..."
>
>Dec. 22, 1996, in <32cfe080...@news.primenet.com>:
>"...Sagan argued from ignorance of the data."
>
>[responding in the same post to the previous poster's claim that Sagan had
>"affiliations with numerous groups that had access to UFO data"]:
>"No, he did not. Prove me wrong by showing what 'access' he had as well as
>what 'affiliations he had with numerous groups' he had."
>Brian forgot about the USAF, CIA, and DIA that he mentioned only two days
>earlier.
>
>Frager, Friedman, Reynolds, and Zeiler disliked Sagan because he didn't
>share their little fantasy. Any reasons they cited were ad hoc, and who
>cares if there's no consistency. They didn't like him.
>
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Aaron LeClair
<"sau...@bellsouth.net"@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>________
>
> Wasn't Macdonald and Keyhoe involved, and a couple of the people who objected?
Oh, yes!
MacDonald held secret meetings with Condon Committee members
to try to figure out how to best engineer a "confrontation"
about the committee since it had become apparent that they
weren't coming up with the results that MacDonald wanted.
This 'Fifth-Column' provided internal memos to NICAP and
McDonald! These 'leaked' documents, with comments taken out
of context, formed the basis of the Look article by Fuller
which was published before the Condon Report was published!
They held secret meetings with McDonald to decide how to
"engineer a confrontation"!
Their conduct was sufficiently unprofessional that, when
asked, Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing
admitted that if an employee of his acted this way:
"I'd probably fire him. I'd take a dim view of the
disloyalty..."
And, at the very beginning of the study, Saunders had
already had his mind fully made up! He wrote:
"I had maintained that a 'government conspiracy' to conceal
the 'truth about UFOs' from the public was an even more
likely hypothesis than the ETI."
Yet none of the documents which were submitted were used as
the basis of this belief. It was, however, the NICAP
official position!
NICAP in the January-Feburary 1967 issue of THE UFO
INVESTIGATOR:
"It is probably fair to say that the scientists on the
project range from open-minded skeptics to moderately
convinced 'believers'..."
So, until the committee didn't arrive at the results that
the believers wanted, the scientists were ok with them.
>I got some of it on tape. Atleast I think it's related to the Condon commitee, I
>know they are talking about it, and it looks like a hearing of sorts.
>
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Nah, Twitch is just citing opinions he likes without caring if there's
>> any truth or validity to them.
>
>Please post some evidence for this claim.
In a response to Cluster User's comment on science and their attitude
towards UFOs you retorted: "I'm glad to know that your real interest is
the scientific establishment's attitude towards UFOs. They have inves-
tigated them and found the evidence laughable."
As supportive "evidence" you referenced, among others, the Robertson
Panel and the NAS review of the Condon report.
In another post you remarked: "They [scientists] have more important
things to do than chase UFO's. They did look hard but found no UFOs
that were worth studying as is shown by a whole load of documents."
The "documents" referred to are again, among others, the Robertson
panel and the Condon report.
Very clear here is how you put these to use, namely that 1) science
has adequately investigated UFOs but found "nothing worth studying"
and 2) that therefore no new scientific attention is warranted.
This is a fair representation of your position.
It is however entirely premised on the following:
1. The reports are true and accurate in their assessments, and their
investigation was sound.
2. There is no other information to consider.
Neither premise holds true.
>>Here is how Dr. Thorton Page looked
>> back at the Robertson Panel and his own participation in it:
>>
>> "In retrospect, this writer [T. Page] sees a few misconceptions
>> in the panel's discussion and report. The panel underestimated
>> the long duration of public interest in UFOs, which also puzzles
>> sociologists, and overestimated the astronomers' photographic
>> coverage of the sky. Although the panel did not go as far as
>> Condon, it also tended to ignore the five percent or ten percent
>> of UFO reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been
>> explained."
>
>Let's see, the panel underestimated public interest, etc.
>
>Nothing in that quote which differs from what I said!
Compelling evidence that Twitch has shielded himself from data that
would tend to negate his presumptions and beliefs.
Twitch has cited the Robertson Panel report as evidence that science
has "investigated [UFOs] and found the evidence laughable." Twitch
has cited the Robertson Panel report as "looking hard", but not finding
anything "worth studying."
Yet Page, one of the original Robertson Panel members, has stated
that the Panel "tended to ignore the five percent or ten percent of UFO
reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been explained."
Page also accused Condon of doing same.
Obviously, there's a vast difference between Twitch's *interpretation*
of these reports' value, and the actual value.
What part of this don't you understand?
[I wrote:]
>> Twitch
>> cites Ed Condon's personal conclusions and tried to pass them off
>> as representing the entire Committee's opinion
[Twitch retorts:]
>More of Jean's citing opinions he likes without caring if
>there's any truth or validity to them.
>
>"…we confronted Dr. Condon with the question of what would
>happen if we who were doing the investigations of UFO
>reports were to come to conclusions which differed from his
>own. We were, at that time, specifically concerned about
>possible differences regarding the validity of the
>extraterrestrial hypothesis. Dr. Condon had pointed out
>that we were completely free to seek out any evidence that
>extraterrestrial vehicles are or have been visiting our
>planet, and to pursue our leads in any manner we thought
>promising. If we could come up with convincing evidence,
>and could therewith convince him of the validity of the ETI
>hypothesis, that would be his, and the project’s, report."
>
>"I pointed out to Norm, Dr. Condon had assured us that OUR
>findings and conclusions would be represented effectively in
>the final report - whether or not they coincided with his
>own conclusions."
>(Emphasis in original)
>
> "At the end of our all-day discussion, we did not know what
>Dr. Condon would write as "recommendations." We were
>confident, however, that those recommendations would reflect
>the actual findings of the Colorado Project (Condon
>Committee)"
>
Great comeback Twitch. You don't even identify who said that.
In any case, it's not important anyway.
The "evidence", to counter my suggestion that the conclusions
were Condon's own and not those of his staff, offered is nothing
more than a personal promise by Condon made to, presumably,
a staff member of the committee (Craig?).
I am underwhelmed.
To see if Ed Condon's "Summary of the Study" did in fact fairly
represent the findings of the investigative committee the logical
choice would be *not* to rely on someone's recollection of what
Condon may have promised (even if Condon made that promise
it is _not_ evidence that he put it to _practice_), but to actually
compare the Condon summary with the staff's findings.
Regarding the conclusions of the Condon report and the lack of
correlation with the staff's findings, I refer interested readers to
the article "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado
UFO Project" by Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, in JSE, Vol. 1, No. 1,
1987, pp. 75-100. Sturrock is a professor of astrophysics at the
Stanford University Center for Space Science and Astrophysics.
Sturrock writes in his paper:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
Sturrock continues (on photographic cases):
"In his summary of this category, Hartmann (Condon & Gillmor,
1968, p. 86) describes a "residual group of unidentifieds" which
"is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that unknown and extra-
ordinary aircraft have penetrated the airspace of the United States,"
although "none yields sufficient evidence to establish this hypo-
thesis."
"It is interesting to compare Hartmann's report and case studies
with Condon's two-page summary of "Study of UFO Photographs"
(Condon & Gillmor 1968, pp. 35-37). Only one paragraph is clearly
based on Hartmann's work. This reads:
Hartmann made a detailed study of 35 photographic cases
(Section IV, Chapter 3) referring to the period 1966-1968,
and a selection of eighteen older cases, some of which
have been widely acclaimed in the UFO literature. This
photographic study led to the identification of a number of
widely publicized photographs as being ordinary objects,
others as fabrications, and others as innocent misidentifi-
cations of things photographed under unusual conditions."
"In fact, Hartmann discusses 14 cases, of which six are from the
period 1966-1968. Concerning the McMinnville, Oregon, case (Case
46), Condon refers not to the analysis made by Hartmann, but to
an analysis made by Everitt Merritt, who was not a member of the
project staff, but a photogrammatrist on the staff of the Autometrics
Division of the Raytheon Company of Alexandria, Virginia. Merritt
found that "the UFO images turned out to be too fuzzy to allow
worthwhile further parametric analysis." Condon reports at length
Merritt's analysis of another case (Zanesville Ohio; not discussed
anywhere else in the report) that was considered to be a hoax,
and also discusses two photographs published in Look magazine,
quoting the analysis of Staff Sergeant Earl Schroeder of the Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base. Schroeder is not listed as being affiliated
with the Colorado UFO Project, and the case he analyzed was not
considered by the project staff.
"Apart from generalizations, Condon devotes only one and one-half
page to discussion of photographic evidence. Of this one and one-
half pages, 60% is devoted to the work of Meritt, 30% to the work of
Schroeder, and only 10% to the work of Hartmann. Further, as we
have seen, Condon's summary of the work of his own staffmember
(Hartmann) was quite inadequate and -- for whatever reasons --
misleading."
On Condon's summary of radar cases Sturrock writes:
"Thayer, in his summary of radar-visual cases [for Condon], states:
'There is a small, but significant, residue of cases from the radar-visual
files that have no plausible explanation such propagation phenomena
and/or misinterpreted man-made objects.'"
"Condon, in his "Summary of the Study," devotes almost three pages
to discussion of radar sightings of UFOs, but his comments on the case
studies of the Colorado Project are confined to two short paragraphs
comprising only 10% of Condon's discussion of radar sightings. As an
evaluation of these case studies, he quotes from Thayer's summary:
"... there was no case where the meteorological data available tended to
negate the anomalous propagation hypothesis...." This is, at best, an
unfortunate quotation, implying that Thayer regards the anomalous
propagation hypothesis as offering a plausible explanation of every
case. A more complete quotation of Thayer's remark (Condon &
Gillmor, 1968, p. 172) is as follows:
The reader should note that the assignment of cases into the probable
AP cause category could have been made on the basis of the obser-
vational testimony alone. That is to say, that there was no case where
the meteorological data available tended to negate the anomalous
propagation hypothesis, thereby causing that case to be assigned to
some other category.
In the table (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 173) to which Thayer is
referring, we see that for only 19 of the 35 cases does Thayer regard
anomalous propagation to be the "most likely or most plausible ex-
planation." Thayer's assessment is perhaps presented more clearly
by a later quotation (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 174): "... where the
observational data pointed to anomalous propagation as the probable
cause of an UFO incident, the meteorological data are overwhelmingly
in favour of the plausibility of the AP hypothesis." Thaver has clearly
concluded that a substantial fraction of radar observations are pro-
bably due to anomalous propagation effects; but it is equally clear
that he does not ascribe _all_ radar observations to this phenom-
enon. The impression given by Condon's summary concerning
radar-visual cases is, therefore, at variance with Thayer's summary
and with the cases on which Thayer's summary is based."
Dr. Sturrock nicely summarizes by saying that:
"Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of pho-
tographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference to the
work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's work is mis-
leading."
Not if it was a flawed review. The NAS quotes can be compared
with Sturrock's appraisal below, to see if the NAS assessment
should be seen as definitive, or rather superficial and flawed.
Sturrock writes:
"it is necessary to comment briefly on the review of the Condon
Report by the National Academy of Sciences Panel. This distin-
guished body reviewed the report and fully endorsed its scope,
methodology, and findings... We have noted the discrepancies
between facts and views advanced by the Colorado Project staff
and those advanced by the Director. In comparing these with the
NAS Panel Review, it is clear that some of their information is
taken from the Director's "Summary of the Study," even where the
content of this section is contradicted by material presented in
Sections CR III and CR IV of the report. For instance, in dis-
cussing photographic cases, the Panel asserts that "35 photo-
graphic cases were investigated... none proved to be real objects
with high strangeness." This statement is entirely compatible with
Condon's discussion of photographic evidence in Section CR II of
the report: but, as we have seen in Section III, Condon's state-
ments are not compatible with material presented by Hartmann,
who carried out the photographic analysis: Hartmann discussed
14 cases, not 35; and, in his summary, Hartmann states, "... after
investigation, there remains a small residual of the order of 2% of
all cases, that appears to represent well recorded but unidentified
or unidentifiable objects that are air-borne.""
Sturrock further adds:
"The NAS panel, which was appointed in late October and early
November 1968, began their initial reading of the report on No-
vember 15, 1968. The panel convened on December 2 and again
on January 6, 1969, to conclude its deliberations and to prepare
its findings. Seven weeks is a very short time for the panel mem-
bers to digest a report on what was probably an unfamiliar subject.
This is especially true when there are gross discrepancies between
the report and its summary, which readers are unlikely to expect.
By contrast, the views of the AIAA Subcommittee were crystallized
late in 1970, allowing more time to appreciate the subtleties of the
problem and to digest the massive report."
The American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics neither
supported the NAS review nor Condon's assement, and noted that
Condon had managed weave his own prejudices into the Project's
summary:
"Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than
its title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions.
Making value judgements was no doubt one reason why Condon
was asked to handle the project. One is happy to obtain the jud-
gement of so experienced and respected a man; but one need
not agree with it. The UFO Subcommittee did not find a basis in
the report for his prediction that nothing of scientific value will
come of further studies."
Some relevant URLs:
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/sr2.htm
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/bas1.htm
>This is further backed up by the American Association for
>the Advancement of Science in their magazine Science:
>
>"The Colorado Study is unquestionably the most thorough and
>sophisticated investigation of the nebulous UFO phenomenon
>ever conducted."
Twitch means he is "backed up" by simply a news article written
by Philip M. Boffey, one of Science Magazine's reporters. That's
where the quote comes from (page 260, the 1969 January issue),
and this can hardly be said to oficially represent the AAAS in
these matters as it's just Boffey's own opinion. (Of course Twitch
has never mentioned that the quote came from just a Science
news article, gotta keep up those appearances. :)
Later Science was criticized for treating it only as a news item, no
less in their own pages. In his review of Hynek's UFO book, Dr.
Bruce Murray wrote on Science's coverage of the Condon issue:
"It is also disappointing that Science, which has earned the respect
of U.S. scientists and occasionally the enmity of U.S. bureaucrats
by providing an independent forum for controversial views, failed to
publish a responsible rebuttal to the Condon report, treating it in-
stead as a news item. As a result, the substantial criticisms raised
by Hynek now were not adequately aired then."
The full Murray article can be read at:
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/science2.htm
>In this five part series, I have shown that, contrary to
>what is usually stated about the Condon Committee, they did
>a open, unbiased, respected scientific study and came to
>rational and defensible conclusions and recommendations.
Here's an interesting piece excerpted from one of Keyhoe's books.
Keyhoe recalls how he and Gordon Lore (then the assisent director
of NICAP) met with Low (Condon project administrator) to discuss
NICAP relations with the Condon study group. Keyhoe wrote:
""First, has Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?" When Low
shook his head I added, "Does he ever intend to?" "Not at present,"
said Low. "The only field trip we know about was after a contactee
told Condon a UFO was going to land near an Air Force base.
Condon went there - Why, I do not know." "Those contactees
fascinate him," Low explained. "But you're right, he hasn't made
any other field investigation. And he has no plans for one. I might
as well tell you - if he had to make a conclusion now it would be
negative." Gordon Lore looked startled. "Without even examining
any of the evidence?" Low nodded. "He is honestly convinced
there's nothing to it." I said, "Dr. Condon sent you here to urge us
to keep sending reports. Exactly why, since he won't examine
them?" "The project will be accused of reaching a conclusion
without examining all of your evidence." "The project will be
accused of a lot more," I said a bit curtly, " if there is a negative
verdict and you claim NICAP's evidence _was_ examined." Wait
a moment," Low said quickly. "Your job should be to submit your
best evidence and try to change Dr. Condon's present disbelief."
For a second, Lore and I just looked at him, amazed. "After all
you've admitted about Condon?" I demanded. "There's only one
way you'll get us to resume - by Dr. Condon giving us a signed
agreement to investigate certain selected cases, and that means
a full check, interviewing the witnesses, and giving us copies of
the evaluation." "Well, I'll try to persuade him," Low said glumly."
Condon of course didn't comply (reflected in the final report
as well, none of the important cases NICAP had submitted for
review were discussed in the final report). Keyhoe continues:
"We seemed to have reached a dead end. I was about to ask the
[NICAP] Board's feelings in regard to a public announcement
when Dave Saunders made an unexpected visit. He knew about
Low's visit and the refusal letters." Saunders handed Keyhoe
a copy of a memo by Low, dated August 9, 1966 adressed to
some officials of the Colorado University. Low outlined his
views on how to handle the project, writing [emphasis added
on important phrases]:
"In order to undertake such a project, one has to approach it
objectively. That is, one has to admit the possibility that such
things (UFOs) exist. It is _not respectable_ to give _serious
consideration_ to such a possibility. Believers, in other words,
remain outcasts... admitting such possibilities puts us beyond
the pale, and we would _lose_ more in prestige in the scientific
community than we could possibly gain by undertaking the
investigation."
"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."
NICAP severed its ties and understandably stopped supplying the
project with fresh data, NICAP felt betrayed. As Saunders would
say to Keyhoe, "I knew he was negative. But this..."
Another illuminating aspect is how Condon handled some of the
outside criticisms. Jerry Clark recounts that Robert M. Wood,
who at that time was an McDonnell Douglas aerospace engineer
and who had briefed the committee, wrote "Condon a critical but
polite letter listing his concerns about project shortcommings.
Later Wood learned that Condon contacted James S. McDonnell,
CEO of the company Wood worked for, and tried to get him fired."
Twitch feels NICAP, Saunders, etc. turned on Condon and were
thus "disloyal," "dishonest" and all that crap. I think the evidence
tells a different story, they got fed up with Condon's indifference,
prejudices, and promises which turned out to be nothing but hot
air.
>Dr. Condon wrote of his frustrations regarding the
>treacherous, disloyal, and dishonest conduct of some of the
>believers both on the project and off of it when he wrote:
"Treacherous," "disloyal," "dishonest," yup, McCarthy would
have been mighty proud of Twitch. :)
>> I leave it to the reader's imagination why Twitch would be citing these
>> reports uncritically, even to the point of ignoring important content. I
>> think the answer to that question is pretty straightforward.
>
>Yes. Unlike Jean, twitch has actually read something other
>than Saunders and the like.
More mistaken TwitchPresumptions. I don't have a copy of the
Saunders book nor have I read it.
>> Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
>
>which you won't find listening to Jean.
Another meaningless taunt. Ususually the resort of someone with
no good evidence. <hint>
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________
Jean van gemert
The following commentary is abstracted from some of the messages that were
posted in these newsgroups. I've casted them into a Q/A answer format that
is easy to follow, saves me the trouble of having to repeat myself.
1. The Robertson Panel
2. Condon's Summary
3. The NAS review
4. Support by the AAAS?
5. Condon's prejudice
6. "The trick would be..."
7. Mr. McCarthy, are you there?
==========================================================================
1. The Robertson Panel
Q. Has science done adequate investigations into UFO phenomena? I've heard
that the Robertson Panel and the Condon report are strong evidence that no
reasons exist to warrant (renewed) UFO studies.
A. There were indeed several "official" investigations, and the best known
are probably the Robertson Panel report and the Condon investigation by the
University of Colorado.
The Robertson Panel was briefed in 1953 on a number of cases from the Blue
Book files. The panel assessed the evidence, and eventually concluded they
believed there was "no residuum of cases" showing UFOs were a threat to the
U.S. national security, nor was there "need for the revision of current
scientific concepts" (i.e. no evidence that UFOs were novel phenomena).
In 1980, one of the Panel's members, Dr. Thorton Page, reflected back on
his participation, he wrote:
"In retrospect, this writer [T. Page] sees a few misconceptions in the
panel's discussion and report. The panel underestimated the long duration
of public interest in UFOs, which also puzzles sociologists, and overes-
timated the astronomers' photographic coverage of the sky. Although the
panel did not go as far as Condon, it also tended to ignore the five
percent or ten percent of UFO reports that are highly reliable and have
not as yet been explained."
Thus substantiating that the panel's assessment was not a fair one.
==========================================================================
2. Condon's Summary
Q. In the case of the Condon study, were the Committee members' findings
fairly represented in Condon's "Summary of the Study" chapter?
A. Although Condon had made promises to NICAP and some of his staff that
they would be, the evidence for this is lacking and in fact the opposite
is rather true. Regarding the lack of correlation of Condon's summary
with the staff's findings, I have excerpted following form the article
"An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project" by Dr.
Peter A. Sturrock, in JSE, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987, pp. 75-100. Sturrock is
a professor of astrophysics at the Stanford University Center for Space
Science and Astrophysics. Sturrock writes in his paper:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
Sturrock continues (on photographic cases):
"In his summary of this category, Hartmann (Condon & Gillmor, 1968,
p. 86) describes a "residual group of unidentifieds" which "is not
inconsistent with the hypothesis that unknown and extraordinary air-
craft have penetrated the airspace of the United States," although
"none yields sufficient evidence to establish this hypothesis."
"It is interesting to compare Hartmann's report and case studies
with Condon's two-page summary of "Study of UFO Photographs"
(Condon & Gillmor 1968, pp. 35-37). Only one paragraph is clearly
based on Hartmann's work. This reads:
Hartmann made a detailed study of 35 photographic cases (Section
IV, Chapter 3) referring to the period 1966-1968, and a selection
of eighteen older cases, some of which have been widely acclaimed
in the UFO literature. This photographic study led to the identi-
fication of a number of widely publicized photographs as being
ordinary objects, others as fabrications, and others as innocent
misidentifications of things photographed under unusual conditions."
"In fact, Hartmann discusses 14 cases, of which six are from the
period 1966-1968. Concerning the McMinnville, Oregon, case (Case
46), Condon refers not to the analysis made by Hartmann, but to
an analysis made by Everitt Merritt, who was not a member of the
project staff, but a photogrammatrist on the staff of the Autome-
trics Division of the Raytheon Company of Alexandria, Virginia.
Merritt found that "the UFO images turned out to be too fuzzy to
allow worthwhile further parametric analysis." Condon reports at
length Merritt's analysis of another case (Zanesville Ohio; not
discussed anywhere else in the report) that was considered to be
a hoax, and also discusses two photographs published in Look ma-
gazine, quoting the analysis of Staff Sergeant Earl Schroeder of
the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Schroeder is not listed as
being affiliated with the Colorado UFO Project, and the case he
analyzed was not considered by the project staff."
"Apart from generalizations, Condon devotes only one and one-half
page to discussion of photographic evidence. Of this one and one-
half pages, 60% is devoted to the work of Meritt, 30% to the work
of Schroeder, and only 10% to the work of Hartmann. Further, as
we have seen, Condon's summary of the work of his own staffmember
(Hartmann) was quite inadequate and -- for whatever reasons --
misleading."
On Condon's summary of radar cases Sturrock writes:
"Thayer, in his summary of radar-visual cases [for Condon], states:
'There is a small, but significant, residue of cases from the radar-
visual files that have no plausible explanation such propagation
phenomena and/or misinterpreted man-made objects.'"
"Condon, in his "Summary of the Study," devotes almost three pages
to discussion of radar sightings of UFOs, but his comments on the
case studies of the Colorado Project are confined to two short
paragraphs comprising only 10% of Condon's discussion of radar
sightings. As an evaluation of these case studies, he quotes from
Thayer's summary: "... there was no case where the meteorological
data available tended to negate the anomalous propagation hypothe-
sis...." This is, at best, an unfortunate quotation, implying that
Thayer regards the anomalous propagation hypothesis as offering a
plausible explanation of every case. A more complete quotation of
Thayer's remark (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 172) is as follows:
"The reader should note that the assignment of cases into the
probable AP cause category could have been made on the basis of
the observational testimony alone. That is to say, that there was
no case where the meteorological data available tended to negate
the anomalous propagation hypothesis, thereby causing that case
to be assigned to some other category."
"In the table (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 173) to which Thayer is
referring, we see that for only 19 of the 35 cases does Thayer
regard anomalous propagation to be the "most likely or most
plausible explanation." Thayer's assessment is perhaps presented
more clearly by a later quotation (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 174):
"... where the observational data pointed to anomalous propagation
as the probable cause of an UFO incident, the meteorological data
are overwhelmingly in favour of the plausibility of the AP hypo-
thesis."
Thaver has clearly concluded that a substantial fraction of radar
observations are probably due to anomalous propagation effects; but
it is equally clear that he does not ascribe _all_ radar observa-
tions to this phenomenon. The impression given by Condon's summary
concerning radar-visual cases is, therefore, at variance with
Thayer's summary and with the cases on which Thayer's summary is
based."
Dr. Sturrock then summarizes by saying that:
"Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of
photographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference
to the work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's
work is misleading."
==========================================================================
3. The NAS review
Q. But isn't the National Academy of Sciences' review of the Condon
study not compelling evidence that Condon's assessment, that nothing
useful would be gained from studying UFOs, is accurate?
A. Not if it was a flawed review. The NAS quotes can be compared to
the following excerpt of Sturrock's. Sturrock writes:
"it is necessary to comment briefly on the review of the Condon Report
by the National Academy of Sciences Panel. This distinguished body
reviewed the report and fully endorsed its scope, methodology, and
findings... We have noted the discrepancies between facts and views
advanced by the Colorado Project staff and those advanced by the
Director. In comparing these with the NAS Panel Review, it is clear
that some of their information is taken from the Director's "Summary
of the Study," even where the content of this section is contradicted
by material presented in Sections CR III and CR IV of the report. For
instance, in discussing photographic cases, the Panel asserts that
"35 photographic cases were investigated... none proved to be real
objects with high strangeness." This statement is entirely compatible
with Condon's discussion of photographic evidence in Section CR II of
the report: but, as we have seen in Section III, Condon's statements
are not compatible with material presented by Hartmann, who carried
out the photographic analysis: Hartmann discussed 14 cases, not 35;
and, in his summary, Hartmann states, "... after investigation, there
remains a small residual of the order of 2% of all cases, that appears
to represent well recorded but unidentified or unidentifiable objects
that are air-borne.""
Sturrock further adds:
"The NAS panel, which was appointed in late October and early November
1968, began their initial reading of the report on November 15, 1968.
The panel convened on December 2 and again on January 6, 1969, to
conclude its deliberations and to prepare its findings. Seven weeks is
a very short time for the panel members to digest a report on what was
probably an unfamiliar subject. This is especially true when there are
gross discrepancies between the report and its summary, which readers
are unlikely to expect. By contrast, the views of the AIAA Subcommittee
were crystallized late in 1970, allowing more time to appreciate the
subtleties of the problem and to digest the massive report."
In contrast to the NAS review, The American Institute for Aeronautics
and Astronautics published a not so flattering review of the Colorado
Study and noted that Condon had managed to weave his own prejudices
into the Project's summary. The AIAA UFO subcommittee wrote:
"Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than its title
indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions. Making value
judgements was no doubt one reason why Condon was asked to handle the
project. One is happy to obtain the judgement of so experienced and
respected a man; but one need not agree with it. The UFO Subcommittee
did not find a basis in the report for his prediction that nothing of
scientific value will come of further studies."
Some relevant URLs:
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/sr2.htm
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/bas1.htm
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/aiaa11.htm
==========================================================================
4. Support by the AAAS?
Q. But the American Association for the Advancement of Science openly
supported the Condon study too, arguing that "The Colorado Study is
unquestionably the most thorough and sophisticated investigation of
the nebulous UFO phenomenon ever conducted." Right?
A. Absolutely not! The quote originates from just a news article from
Science's news pages and was written by Philip M. Boffey (page 260,
the 1969 January issue). It could hardly be said to oficially represent
the AAAS in these matters as Boffey was expressing his own opinion only.
Interestingly, Science was later criticized for treating it only as a
news item, no less in their own pages. In his review of Hynek's UFO
book, Dr. Bruce Murray wrote on Science's coverage of the Condon issue:
"It is also disappointing that Science, which has earned the respect
of U.S. scientists and occasionally the enmity of U.S. bureaucrats
by providing an independent forum for controversial views, failed to
publish a responsible rebuttal to the Condon report, treating it in-
stead as a news item. As a result, the substantial criticisms raised
by Hynek now were not adequately aired then."
The full Murray article can be read at:
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/science2.htm
==========================================================================
5. Condon's prejudice
Q. But surely Condon was still open and unbiased with respect to the
study?
A. Although some of Condon's close friends maintained he was, Condon's
own actions tell a different story. The following is excerpted from one
of Donald Keyhoe's books, then director of NICAP. Keyhoe recalls how he
and Gordon Lore (then the assisent director of NICAP) met with Low (who
was the Condon project administrator) to discuss NICAP relations with
the Condon study group. Keyhoe wrote:
""First, has Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?" When Low shook his
head I added, "Does he ever intend to?" "Not at present," said Low. "The
only field trip we know about was after a contactee told Condon a UFO was
going to land near an Air Force base. Condon went there - Why, I do not
know." "Those contactees fascinate him," Low explained. "But you're right,
he hasn't made any other field investigation. And he has no plans for one.
I might as well tell you - if he had to make a conclusion now it would be
negative." Gordon Lore looked startled. "Without even examining any of the
evidence?" Low nodded. "He is honestly convinced there's nothing to it." I
said, "Dr. Condon sent you here to urge us to keep sending reports. Exactly
why, since he won't examine them?" "The project will be accused of reaching
a conclusion without examining all of your evidence." "The project will be
accused of a lot more," I said a bit curtly, " if there is a negative ver-
dict and you claim NICAP's evidence _was_ examined." Wait a moment,"
Low said quickly. "Your job should be to submit your best evidence and try
to change Dr. Condon's present disbelief." For a second, Lore and I just
looked at him, amazed. "After all you've admitted about Condon?" I
demanded. "There's only one way you'll get us to resume - by Dr. Condon
giving us a signed agreement to investigate certain selected cases, and
that means a full check, interviewing the witnesses, and giving us copies
of the evaluation." "Well, I'll try to persuade him," Low said glumly."
Position statements from Ed Condon also appeared in the press. And one
time, he was quoted as having said, with the investigations barely just
three months old, that: "my attitude right now is that there's nothing
to it, but I am not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year".
Alan Hynek later commented on this: "Here we have Condon saying the
project is not worthwhile (a few months later he asked for $259,146 to
continue the work)... with the implication that there was no point in
looking further."
Hynek had also met with Condon and the staff two weeks after the contract
for the Colorado study had been signed. Hynek recalls Condon already had
a "basically negative attitude" then.
How Condon handled some of the outside criticism on the Project is also
worth noting. Jerome Clark recounts how Robert M. Wood, who at that time
was an McDonnell Douglas aerospace engineer and who had also briefed the
committee, wrote "Condon a critical but polite letter listing his concerns
about project shortcommings. Later Wood learned that Condon had contacted
James S. McDonnell, CEO of the company Wood worked for, and tried to get
him fired."
Not exactly my idea of a flattering picture.
==========================================================================
6. "The trick would be..."
Q. What about the "trick" memo? Wasn't it taken out of context to put Low
and Condon into a bad light? Was there anything to it?
A. The "trick" memo's context is actually quite clear and most UFO books
tend to leave out a preceding paragraph which is equally illuminating re
project policy as Robert Low imagined it.
The "trick" memo was leaked to NICAP by Saunders at a time when relations
with Condon has already greatly suffered. Keyhoe wrote: "We seemed to have
reached a dead end. I was about to ask the [NICAP] Board's feelings in
regard to a public announcement when Dave Saunders made an unexpected
visit. He knew about Low's visit and the refusal letters."
Saunders then handed Keyhoe a copy of a memo by Low, dated August 9, 1966
adressed to some officials of the Colorado University. Low outlined his
views on how to handle the project, writing [emphasis added on key parts]:
"In order to undertake such a project, one has to approach it objectively.
That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things (UFOs) exist.
It is _not respectable_ to give _serious consideration_ to such a possi-
bility. Believers, in other words, remain outcasts... admitting such
possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would _lose_ more in
prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain by
undertaking the investigation."
"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."
Because of the memo NICAP severed its ties with the project, it felt very
much betrayed as it had expected an open minded investigation rather than
one paved with prejudice. As Saunders would note to Keyhoe "I knew he was
negative. But this..."
==========================================================================
7. Mr. McCarthy, are you there?
Q. Wasn't NICAP's turning on Condon and Dave Saunder's leaking of the memo
dishonest, disloyal, etc.?
A. No, they just got fed up with Condon and Low's indifference, prejudices,
and promises which turned out to be hot air and thus decided to act, rather
than to just sit back and do nothing.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>> Nah, Twitch is just citing opinions he likes without caring if there's
>>> any truth or validity to them.
>>
>>Please post some evidence for this claim.
>
[...]
>
>As supportive "evidence" you referenced, among others, the Robertson
>Panel and the NAS review of the Condon report.
>
Yes.
[...]
>
>Very clear here is how you put these to use, namely that 1) science
>has adequately investigated UFOs but found "nothing worth studying"
>and 2) that therefore no new scientific attention is warranted.
>
>This is a fair representation of your position.
Sorry but it is just Jean's misuse of the English Language.
Number 2 is only based on the present evidence that is
known. If new evidence comes along, it might be different.
That is the position of the vast majority of scientists,
Jean.
>
>It is however entirely premised on the following:
>
>1. The reports are true and accurate in their assessments, and their
>investigation was sound.
>
>2. There is no other information to consider.
>
>Neither premise holds true.
Let's look at #1!
The National Academy of Sciences said about the Condon
Committee:
"We think that the methodology and approach were well
chosen, in accordance with accepted standards of scientific
investigation....We are unanimous in the opinion that this
has been a very creditable effort to apply objectively the
relevant techniques of science to the solution of the UFO
problem."
Which certainly says that the Condon Committee reports are
true and accurate in their assessments, and their
investigation was sound.
The NAS didn't only look at the Condon Committee report but
at papers from both believers and skeptics. MacDonald had
three of his papers reviewed!
Hardly a myopic view.
>
[...]
>Twitch has cited the Robertson Panel report as evidence that science
>has "investigated [UFOs] and found the evidence laughable." Twitch
>has cited the Robertson Panel report as "looking hard", but not finding
>anything "worth studying."
>
>Yet Page, one of the original Robertson Panel members, has stated
>that the Panel "tended to ignore the five percent or ten percent of UFO
>reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been explained."
Since the data for those reports is not such that any
conclusions can be drawn.
There is absolutely no evidence that the ETH applies to
those cases.
Remember when Blue Book investigated cases they were accused
of just finding any old explanation.
Then Hynek, after founding CUFOS, looked into these cases,
he was able to answer 10% more of the cases than was Blue
Book.
Unexplained is not the same as ETH.
When you are accepting cases that have little or no physical
evidence, you must accept that some will not be explained.
The Aurora case would have been listed as one of the best
cases for UFOs if the investigator (one of Hynek's
investigators from CUFOS) hadn't found by pure chance the
evidence which showed what the case was. The descriptions
didn't turn out to be accurate at all.
>
>Page also accused Condon of doing same.
Funny, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in their magazine Science said:
"The Colorado Study is unquestionably the most thorough and
sophisticated investigation of the nebulous UFO phenomenon
ever conducted."
>
>Obviously, there's a vast difference between Twitch's *interpretation*
>of these reports' value, and the actual value.
Nope. Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring
if there's any truth or validity to them.
Isn't it funny that Jean, Brian, Rudiak, Geoff Price used to
tell us all about how bad the Condon Committee report was
without ever once mentioning the National Academy of
Sciences or any of the other evidence that the Condon
Committee did a decent job?
Just like Jean a while ago quoted part of the resignation
letter from one of the conspirators but left out the part
that said:
"After the last couple of days, I agree that I, and some
others, have made a very tragic mistake in not coming to you
long before this. But, that is in retrospect and, at the
time, I personally did not feel that you would have been as
sympathetic to our feelings as you have been."
IOW, the conspirators didn't approach Condon as they were
too busy plotting with MacDonald to destroy the Condon
Committee!
Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring if
there's any truth or validity to them.
>
>What part of this don't you understand?
I understand that Jean is just citing opinions he likes
without caring if there's any truth or validity to them.
>
I have frequently done so. It was Craig. One of the PIs on
the Condon Committee that Levine tried to join the revold.
Craig was a believer but got maligned since he wouldn't
stoop to the tactics of Saunders and Levine.
Craig even went to Condon and complained about a change in
the report that a tech editor made since he felt that it
changed the meaning. Condon sent out word that all changes
to their words must be approved by the scientists.
Hardly a closeminded attitude.
>
>The "evidence", to counter my suggestion that the conclusions
>were Condon's own and not those of his staff, offered is nothing
>more than a personal promise by Condon made to, presumably,
>a staff member of the committee (Craig?).
>
>I am underwhelmed.
>
>To see if Ed Condon's "Summary of the Study" did in fact fairly
>represent the findings of the investigative committee the logical
>choice would be *not* to rely on someone's recollection of what
>Condon may have promised (even if Condon made that promise
>it is _not_ evidence that he put it to _practice_), but to actually
>compare the Condon summary with the staff's findings.
>
<snip>
What were the conclusions, Jean?
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
All the years that have since passed have shown that to be a
reasoned statement. We have loads of people 'researching'
UFOs but nothing has come from it.
They can't even agree on where the Roswell spacecraft
crashed, how many bodies there were or what the bodies
looked like!
Gulf Breeze? How many teams of 'researchers' has MUFON sent
there to look at it? How many of them got fired for not
coming up with the right answers?
That Condon conclusion looks pretty good from here!
What about future investigations?
"We believe that any scientist with adequate training and
credentials who does come up with a clearly defined,
specific proposal for study (of UFOs) should be supported.
We think that all the agencies of the federal government,
and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to
consider UFO research proposals along with others submitted
to them on an open-minded basis."
Wow! Asking scientists to come up with a clearly defined,
specific proposal is certainly dispicable! No one in
UFOlogy ever does that.
Notice that Condon didn't state that it shouldn't be
researched, just that it should be judged like other
proposals.
What about setting up the government agency that Hynek and
MacDonald wanted so desperately?
"This formulation carries with it the corollary that we do
not think that at this time the federal government ought to
set up a major new agency, as some have suggested, for the
scientific study of UFOs. This conclusion may not be true
for all time. If, by the progress of research based on new
ideas in this field, it then appears to be worthwhile to
create such an agency, the decision to do so may be taken at
that time…"
That is the crux of the problem! Condon couldn't recommend
setting up a new bureaucracy to study UFOs!
Condon didn't recommend that UFOs not be studied, but that
no gov't agency be set up to do so!
"It is our impression that the defense function could be
performed within the framework established for intelligence
and surveillance operations without the continuance of a
special unit such as Project Blue Book, but this is a
question for defense specialists rather than research
scientists."
Treat UFOs as you would any other flying object!
Of course, we are told that the AF said that they were
getting out of the UFO business and the fact that JANAP 146
still mentions UFOs is trotted out as an old warhorse to
"prove" this.
The fact is the the AF said that they would follow the
Condon Committee recommendations and treat UFOs through the
normal intelligence system (i.e., JANAP 146).
One person's opinion can hardly be called definitive,
remember your comments on Craig!
>The NAS quotes can be compared
>with Sturrock's appraisal below<snip>
Ah, Jean want Sturrock to be right, so he discounts the NAS!
Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring if
there's any truth or validity to them.
I checked a year or so ago and tried to find out what the
peer-review process was at the JSE and how it was handled.
I should have gotten a decent response since most
professional journals are very careful in this area. The
JSE didn't send me a copy of their procedures, they just
told me that they did a good job of it!
For an example of the slanting allowed in the JSE, go to
their web site and look at:
The Roswell UFO Crash: Myth or Reality?
This is hardly a good press release and the strawmen that
they set up is a disgrace.
>The American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics neither
>supported the NAS review nor Condon's assement, and noted that
>Condon had managed weave his own prejudices into the Project's
>summary:
>
>"Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than
>its title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions.
>Making value judgements was no doubt one reason why Condon
>was asked to handle the project. One is happy to obtain the jud-
>gement of so experienced and respected a man; but one need
>not agree with it. The UFO Subcommittee did not find a basis in
>the report for his prediction that nothing of scientific value will
>come of further studies."
The UFO Subcommittee was clearly wrong. We have had loads
of people running around investigating UFOs for decades now
and even MUFON admits that none of the questions that they
asked 25 years ago has been answered.
One of the judgements Condon made was:
"I had some awareness of the passionate controversy that
swirled around the subject, contributing added difficulty to
the task of making a dispassionate study...Had I known of
the extent of the emotional commitment of the UFO believers
and the extremes of conduct to which their faith can lead
them, I certainly would never have undertaken the study."
Jean certainly makes him look right here!
<snip>
>Here's an interesting piece excerpted from one of Keyhoe's books.
>Keyhoe recalls how he and Gordon Lore (then the assisent director
>of NICAP) met with Low (Condon project administrator) to discuss
>NICAP relations with the Condon study group. Keyhoe wrote:
>
>""First, has Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?" When Low
>shook his head I added, "Does he ever intend to?"
When Keyhoe was asked if he had ever interviewed a UFO
witness or done field research, he said several times. When
asked which ones he wouldn't answer.
Condon wasn't supposed to be a field investigator but the
senior scientist and project manager.
The project manager doesn't do this sort of work. Which you
would know if you knew more about science projects.
Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
the one to discover it.'
This is backed up by the NICAP in the January-Feburary 1967
issue of THE UFO INVESTIGATOR. "It is probably fair to say
that the scientists on the project range from open-minded
skeptics to moderately convinced 'believers'..."
Isn't it amazing how their opinions changed when the
investigation didn't find what they wanted it to find?
[...]
>Keyhoe continues:
>"We seemed to have reached a dead end. I was about to ask the
>[NICAP] Board's feelings in regard to a public announcement
>when Dave Saunders made an unexpected visit. He knew about
>Low's visit and the refusal letters." Saunders handed Keyhoe
>a copy of a memo by Low, dated August 9, 1966 adressed to
>some officials of the Colorado University.
What Keyhoe didn't say is that Saunders had already handed
them a copy via MacDonald during a secret meeting before
this where they plotted how to "engineer a confrontation"!
Notice that Jean doesn't mention what Keyhoe said about
Saunders and Levine!
Their conduct was sufficiently unprofessional that, when
asked, Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing
admitted that if an employee of his acted this way "I'd
probably fire him. I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
<snip>
>
>NICAP severed its ties and understandably stopped supplying the
>project with fresh data, NICAP felt betrayed. As Saunders would
>say to Keyhoe, "I knew he was negative. But this..."
Considering if you read the memo, you'll see that this memo
had absolutely no impact on the Condon Committee. Saunders
knew this but was prepared to use any strategem to bring
down the project since he couldn't control it.
Condon didn't even know of the existance of the memo!
A fact withheld not only here but in the articles rushed
through to be published prior to the Condon Committee
report!
<snip>
>
>Twitch feels NICAP, Saunders, etc. turned on Condon and were
>thus "disloyal," "dishonest" and all that crap.
NO. That was Keyhoe's opinion!
Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing admitted that
if an employee of his acted this way "I'd probably fire him.
I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
>I think the evidence
>tells a different story, they got fed up with Condon's indifference,
>prejudices, and promises which turned out to be nothing but hot
>air.
>
More distortions from Jean!
At the very beginning of the study, Saunders had already had
his mind fully made up! He wrote: "I had maintained that a
'government conspiracy' to conceal the 'truth about UFOs'
from the public was an even more likely hypothesis than the
ETI."
Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
the one to discover it.'
>>Dr. Condon wrote of his frustrations regarding the
>>treacherous, disloyal, and dishonest conduct of some of the
>>believers both on the project and off of it when he wrote:
>
>"Treacherous," "disloyal," "dishonest," yup, McCarthy would
>have been mighty proud of Twitch. :)
Then he would have been proud of Keyhoe too!
Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing admitted that
if an employee of his acted this way "I'd probably fire him.
I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
Doesn't Jean think it disloyal to meet with someone to plot
the destruction of the work that they are being paid to do?
Doesn't Jean think that working on a project when they knew
that they were disqualified by the terms of the contract
(which Saunders helped write!) is disloyal?
>
>>> I leave it to the reader's imagination why Twitch would be citing these
>>> reports uncritically, even to the point of ignoring important content. I
>>> think the answer to that question is pretty straightforward.
>>
>>Yes. Unlike Jean, twitch has actually read something other
>>than Saunders and the like.
>
>More mistaken TwitchPresumptions. I don't have a copy of the
>Saunders book nor have I read it.
>
<snip>
Nor have you apparently read much else about it except what
some of the believers have written.
I suggest that you read the Saunders' book.
It is good for a laugh!
Geoff Price
In article <6ivf82$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
[...]
> Isn't it funny that Jean, Brian, Rudiak, Geoff Price used to
> tell us all about how bad the Condon Committee report was
> without ever once mentioning the National Academy of
> Sciences or any of the other evidence that the Condon
> Committee did a decent job?
I'm not following this particular mud-flinging contest, but there's my
name popping out of a typical wild-eyed exclamation-riddled Twitch
harangue, so I suppose I should clarify.
Twitch is referring to an article I wrote titled "UFOs and Science"
reviewing the historical relationship between (American) scientific
institutions and the UFO enigma. I discussed several reviews, but since
the gist of the article was to argue that the question is hardly "closed"
from a scientific perspective it is true that I gave more column inches to
the critical AIAA report than I did to supporting reports.
However, Twitch's suggestion that I went "without ever once mentioning any
of the evidence that the Condon Committee did a decent job" is just the
usual kookiness. Here's the relevant section in which I review the
reviews of the Condon report:
[Begin Price on Condon reviews]
In the summary, Condon stated that, despite our best efforts "our general
conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21
years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the
record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation
that science will be advanced thereby." He wrote that scientists should
not uncritically accept the conclusion of the report, urging that if new
ideas for "clearly defined, specific studies" were forthcoming, they
should be supported. He also stated "we found rather less than some
persons may have expected in the way of psychiatric problems related to
belief in the reality of UFOs as craft from remote galactic or
intergalactic civilizations."
Although the lasting impression of Condon's final report has been that
UFOs were "debunked", the initial review in scientific circles was mixed.
Astronomer H.-Y. Chiu, writing in Icarus (a planetary science journal),
gave an approving review of Condon's effort, arguing that ufology should
now be regarded as a pseudoscience, and making familiar arguments against
the extraterrestrial hypothesis on the grounds of the unlikelihood of our
being found by intergalactic travelers. He concluded that ufologists will
find this truth a bitter pill; "they will undoubtedly continue their
ufological career, perhaps with even greater vigor and bitterness toward
scientists."
In the same journal, James McDonald gave a dissenting view, writing "For
the real nature of the UFO phenomena seems so scientifically challenging
and cries out for such top-caliber attention that a major study which led
only to downgrading it to even lower levels than it had enjoyed in all
preceding years seems hard to understand. I cannot understand it." A
summary of his objections to the investigation can be viewed at:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/critique.html
(McDonald's more extensive discussion of various key Condon (and other)
cases can be found in his "Science in Default" paper, somewhat required
reading for this topic:)
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/aaas1.htm
While some journals such as Science endorsed the report, Condon found less
enthusiastic reviewers in the appointed UFO Subcommittee of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), a professional
organization of 25,000 aerospace scientists and engineers. The
subcommittee wrote that it "has made a careful examination of the present
state of the UFO issue and has concluded that the controversy cannot be
resolved without further study in a quantitative scientific manner and
that it deserves the attention of the engineering and scientific
community." Further, it "strongly feels that, from a scientific and
engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial
numbers of unexplained observations and to close the book about them on
the basis of premature conclusions."
In a contemporary, detailed review of the Condon Report, Astrophysicist
Peter Sturrock of Stanford's Institute for Plasma Research writes, "the
weaknesses of the Condon Report are an understandable but regrettable
consequence of a misapprehension concerning the nature and subtlety of the
phenomenon.... The substance of the Condon Report represents a persuasive
case for the view that there is some phenomenological fire hidden behind
the smoke of UFO reports, and the Report therefore supports the
proposition that further scientific study of UFOs is in order."
[End]
This, to my knowledge, is the entirety of my comments on the subject. You
can judge for yourself if it entails telling "all about how bad the Condon
Committee report was without ever once mentioning any of the evidence that
the Condon Committee did a decent job". Seems like tired Twitch loopiness
to me, but I suspect such perceptions will fall mostly along ideological
partisan lines. (But there's always the wishful belief in the existence
of neutral and rational lurkers out there tracking such discussions. :)
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Greg Matthews
In article <Geoff-08059...@max1-111.snlo.dialup.callamer.com>,
Ge...@CalibanMW.com says...>>in the summary, Condon stated that, despite our best efforts "our general
>conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21
>years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the
>record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
>extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation
>that science will be advanced thereby." He wrote that scientists should
>not uncritically accept the conclusion of the report, urging that if new
>ideas for "clearly defined, specific studies" were forthcoming, they
>should be supported.
Sorry for interrupting this thread, but I have often wondered whether or not
the scientific method as currently formulated and practised, is applicable to
the study of intelligent systems. We seem to have taken it for granted that
the scientific method is the only valid approach to the study of most
phenomena. The scientific method, however, was developed for the study of
simple phenomena under controlled conditions and theories and models of
scientific investigation were accepted on the basis of repeatability. My
question is whether or not controlled conditions can be established for
systems where intelligence is a major factor and whether or not repeatability
can be expected in such cases. My experience with intelligent human beings
is not to expect repeatability, even when you might think conditions are
controlled. I doubt very much that science as currently formulated is
capable of dealing with phenomena that exhibit intelligence. Just look at
the comparison between the correlations coefficients deemed acceptable for
the physical sciences and those considered in social or psychological
studies. Let's try a different approach.
Clearly anomalous phenomena are ocurring whether physical or psychological in
nature and deserve intense investigation. We should know from the
development of modern physics that it is the study of anomalies that led to
new methods of thinking and research and new understandings in science.
Sorry, but I get so impatient with the old paradigm. Consider the history of
the anomalous behaviour of black body radiation and the birth of quantum
mechanics. Let's try not to be so dismissive of reported phenomena that
don't fit the current paradigm.
There. I've said my peace.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
<snip>
>Thus substantiating that the panel's assessment was not a fair one.
>
Sorry, but there was more than one person on the panel!
You are quoting one person and extrapolating that to the
others because of your beliefs.
What did H. P. Robertson think of the Panel's assessment?
What did Samuel A. Goudsmit think of the Panel's assessment?
What did Luis Alvarez think of the Panel's assessment?
What did Lloyd Berkner think of the Panel's assessment?
What did the customer think of the Robertson Panel's
assessment?
After the Robertson Panel the CIA dropped its plans to
obtain a National Security Council authorization to launch
its own UFO investigation.
Memo regarding monitoring UFOs, July 3, 1953:
Todos M. Odarenko wrote that he "planned to handle the
project with a part-time use of (an) analyst and a file
clerk. To provide filing functions, one additional cabinet
will be required."
This was purely to monitor the other agencies results.
In a CIA memo dated Aug. 8, 1955, from the chief of the Div.
responsible for monitoring UFOs:
"In view of the fact that no positive intelligence of
significance has been produced under the subject (UFOs)
project, it is recommended that the project be terminated
and the files thereof be placed in dead storage."
Your claim that "that the panel's assessment was not a fair
one" is not substantiated.
>==========================================================================
>2. Condon's Summary
>
>Q. In the case of the Condon study, were the Committee members' findings
>fairly represented in Condon's "Summary of the Study" chapter?
>
>A. Although Condon had made promises to NICAP and some of his staff that
>they would be, the evidence for this is lacking <snip>
I notice once again you rely on only one person's judgement.
This is akin to saying that blacks have lower intelligence
because Shockley said so. After all, he was a nobel prize
winner.
This is akin to saying that Vitamin C can cure all sorts of
diseases because Pauling said so. After all, he was a nobel
prize winner.
None of the Committee members who weren't let go for cause
has said this.
What did Dr. Craig say about this?
What did Dr. Rhine say about it?
What did Dr. Roach say about it?
In fact, some of them have said just the opposite.
Dr. Craig got some pages back that had the tone altered to a
more cynical tone than he wanted. He felt that it was a
change of meaning and intent rather than an edit job. He
complained to Dr. Condon and the word went out from Dr.
Condon to the editors that "there would be no substantive
changes in material submitted without explicit and written
okay from the author."
Dr. Condon held a full day meeting and listened to what his
investigators wanted to see in the Committee recommendations
prior to his writing them.
None of the people at that meeting has ever said that the
conclusions were different than what they had requested!
"…we confronted Dr. Condon with the question of what would
happen if we who were doing the investigations of UFO
reports were to come to conclusions which differed from his
own. We were, at that time, specifically concerned about
possible differences regarding the validity of the
extraterrestrial hypothesis. Dr. Condon had pointed out
that we were completely free to seek out any evidence that
extraterrestrial vehicles are or have been visiting our
planet, and to pursue our leads in any manner we thought
promising. If we could come up with convincing evidence,
and could therewith convince him of the validity of the ETI
hypothesis, that would be his, and the project’s, report."
(Dr. Craig of the Condon Committee)
"At the end of our all-day discussion, we did not know what
Dr. Condon would write as "recommendations." We were
confident, however, that those recommendations would reflect
the actual findings of the Colorado Project (Condon
Committee)"
(Dr. Craig of the Condon Committee)
>==========================================================================
>3. The NAS review
>
>Q. But isn't the National Academy of Sciences' review of the Condon
>study not compelling evidence that Condon's assessment, that nothing
>useful would be gained from studying UFOs, is accurate?
>
>A. Not if it was a flawed review. The NAS quotes can be compared to
<snip[>
> Seven weeks is
>a very short time for the panel members to digest a report on what was
>probably an unfamiliar subject. <snip>
God, he makes a comment like this and doesn't even know if
it is true!
PROBABLY!
Seven weeks is a decent time to review such a report and all
of the other documents that they were given, such as the 3
reports from MacDonald. I've worked with the NAS, these
guys are neither dummies nor do they ignore the data.
Why haven't you posted any comments from the NAS members?
>The AIAA UFO subcommittee wrote:
>
>"Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than its title
>indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions. Making value
>judgements was no doubt one reason why Condon was asked to handle the
>project. One is happy to obtain the judgement of so experienced and
>respected a man; but one need not agree with it. The UFO Subcommittee
>did not find a basis in the report for his prediction that nothing of
>scientific value will come of further studies."
And, Dr. Condon comes out better than the AIAA!
MUFON listed 5 questions when they started that needed
answering.
At the 25th anniversary they admitted that not one of their
questions had been answered!
Yet, they were doing essentially the same thing as the
Condon Committee.
BTW, Jean, why haven't you posted anything from the AIAA in
the 90's?
Did they lose interest?
UFOs have been studied for 50 years. A large effort has
been put into this by the US Gov't and UFO organizations.
Nothing of merit has yet come out of it.
Gulf Breeze?
Hell, more than half of the UFO 'researchers' believe it to
be a hoax.
Roswell?
Where did that saucer crash?
Condon looks better and better!
<snip of web sites that don't have any comments from the 90s
by the AIAA>
>
>==========================================================================
>4. Support by the AAAS?
>
>Q. But the American Association for the Advancement of Science openly
>supported the Condon study too, arguing that "The Colorado Study is
>unquestionably the most thorough and sophisticated investigation of
>the nebulous UFO phenomenon ever conducted." Right?
>
>A. Absolutely not! The quote originates from just a news article from
>Science's news pages <snip>
They did publish it!
>Interestingly, Science was later criticized for treating it only as a
>news item, no less in their own pages. In his review of Hynek's UFO
>book, Dr. Bruce Murray wrote on Science's coverage of the Condon issue:
>
>"It is also disappointing that Science, which has earned the respect
>of U.S. scientists and occasionally the enmity of U.S. bureaucrats
>by providing an independent forum for controversial views, failed to
>publish a responsible rebuttal to the Condon report, <snip>
Oh, now there is an impartial and unbiased source!
The fact that they didn't publish a rebuttal indicates that
they agreed with the news item.
>==========================================================================
>5. Condon's prejudice
>
>Q. But surely Condon was still open and unbiased with respect to the
>study?
>
>A. Although some of Condon's close friends maintained he was, Condon's
>own actions tell a different story. <snip>
Who should know!
All of Condon's friends have supported him.
Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
the one to discover it.'
But, even one of the dissidents in her resignation letter
wrote:
"After the last couple of days, I agree that I, and some
others, have made a very tragic mistake in not coming to you
long before this. But, that is in retrospect and, at the
time, I personally did not feel that you would have been as
sympathetic to our feelings as you have been."
So, Condon was sympathetic and listened when she approached
him and that was after she had been what Keyhoe called
disloyal!
>
>""First, has Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?" When Low shook his
>head <snip>
When Keyhoe was asked the same question at the press
conference, he said he had interviewed a "few". When asked
which ones, he wouldn't answer!
This merely shows that Jean is ignorant of how such a study
is done.
The project manager send his field reps out and he is
responsible to ensure that they are doing the job by
reviewing their work. He doesn't do field work himself.
Did Condon do his job?
"Riding the elevator back to ground level from Dr. Condon’s
office, I thought about how an outsider might thing that Dr.
Condon, in his distant penthouse, was generally out of touch
with the "real" investigations being conducted out of the
very active Woodbury Hall office. I knew that this was not
the case. When I returned from my first project trip
involving mysterious beeping sounds from nowhere…, Dr.
Condon hailed me at lunch at the University Faculty Club and
asked me to sit with him so I could fill him in on the
details of the field trip. I knew that my subsequent field
work was done with his detailed knowledge and personal
approval. He had a distant office, but he knew most of what
went on in Woodbury Hall. He did not know about the Low
memorandum or our concern regarding its implications."
(Dr. Craig, one of the PIs for the Condon Committee)
>Position statements from Ed Condon also appeared in the press. And one
>time, he was quoted as having said, with the investigations barely just
>three months old, that: "my attitude right now is that there's nothing
>to it, but I am not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year".
This is true, but not the whole story.
"Dr. Condon had taken so much criticism - some of it grossly
unwarranted, and some earned by premature and careless
statements about the project made at public gatherings -
that he obviously regretted ever agreeing to direct the
study."
"When the project was over, Dr. Condon considered the
editorial in THE NATION to have been the most prescient of
the many editorial comments made when the project was
announced. THE NATION had declared, "If Dr. Condon and his
associates come up with anything less than the little green
men from Mars, they will be crucified."
>
>Alan Hynek later commented on this: "Here we have Condon saying the
>project is not worthwhile (a few months later he asked for $259,146 to
>continue the work)...
Which shows where Hynek's heart really was!
>with the implication that there was no point in
>looking further."
>
Which has been justified by the total lack of progress made
by any of the UFO organizations and the lack of decent
evidence for any further study even today.
>Hynek had also met with Condon and the staff two weeks after the contract
>for the Colorado study had been signed. Hynek recalls Condon already had
>a "basically negative attitude" then.
>
Isn't it funny that Hynek didn't state that at the time but
only much later when it became obvious that the committee
wasn't going to go along with his idea of a gov't agency to
do UFO research headed up by Hynek?
In fact, the pro-UFO people were happy after the start of
the project!
This is backed up by the NICAP in the January-Feburary 1967
issue of THE UFO INVESTIGATOR. "It is probably fair to say
that the scientists on the project range from open-minded
skeptics to moderately convinced 'believers'..."
<snip>
>Not exactly my idea of a flattering picture.
>
Of Hynek?
Definitely!
>==========================================================================
>6. "The trick would be..."
>
>Q. What about the "trick" memo? Wasn't it taken out of context to put Low
>and Condon into a bad light? Was there anything to it?
>
>A. The "trick" memo's context is actually quite clear <snip>
Yes. But, it has nothing to do with the Condon Committee as
it wasn't followed and Condon knew nothing of the memo until
after it was released!
> As Saunders would note to Keyhoe "I knew he was
>negative. But this..."
Which merely shows how disloyal Saunders was and what a
fanatic. Even Keyhoe admitted that he would fire Saunders
if he worked for Keyhoe.
Saunders knew that Condon hadn't seen the memo and that the
Committee hadn't followed it at all.
But, it made wonderful ammunition so it was used.
>
>==========================================================================
>7. Mr. McCarthy, are you there?
>
>Q. Wasn't NICAP's turning on Condon and Dave Saunder's leaking of the memo
>dishonest, disloyal, etc.?
>
>A. No, they just got fed up with Condon and Low's indifference, prejudices,
>and promises which turned out to be hot air and thus decided to act, rather
>than to just sit back and do nothing.
>
Bullshit!
They held secret meetings with McDonald to decide how to
"engineer a confrontation"! Their conduct was sufficiently
unprofessional that, when asked, Donald Keyhoe during the
NICAP press briefing admitted that if an employee of his
acted this way "I'd probably fire him. I'd take a dim view
of the disloyalty..."
This 'Fifth-Column' provided internal memos to NICAP and
McDonald! These 'leaked' documents, with comments taken out
of context, formed the basis of the Look article by Fuller
which was published before the Condon Report was published!
And, at the very beginning of the study, Saunders had
already had his mind fully made up! He wrote: "I had
maintained that a 'government conspiracy' to conceal the
'truth about UFOs' from the public was an even more likely
hypothesis than the ETI."
Yet, none of the documents which were submitted were used as
the basis of this belief. It was, however, the NICAP
official position!
So, even by NICAP's opinion they were disloyal employees.
One of the plotters who had given documents to Dr. MacDonald
wrote in her letter of resignation:
"After the last couple of days, I agree that I, and some
others, have made a very tragic mistake in not coming to you
long before this. But, that is in retrospect and, at the
time, I personally did not feel that you would have been as
sympathetic to our feelings as you have been."
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
I'll have large responses up on this tomorrow, one comment stood out though:
>>A. Although some of Condon's close friends maintained he was, Condon's
>>own actions tell a different story. <snip>
>
>Who should know!
>
>All of Condon's friends have supported him.
Which in turn Twitch's uses as "evidence" that Condon was objective, had
the best intentions, etc. etc.
"All of Condon's friends have supported him."
I don't think I need to add anything here. What's so ghastly is that Twitch
seems incapable of grasping the implications of that statement. Perhaps
he simply doesn't want to either.
Did I also mention that the head of the NAS review panel was a former
student and personal friend of Condon too? That's some more context
to ponder.
robert place
> >>refer to the five large scientific studies about UFOs,
> >
> >Is Friedman referring to the Condon Committee, the Robertson
> >Panel, the O'Brien Committee, the CIA study Panel, and Blue
> >Book?
> >
> >They all decided that there was nothing worth investigating
> >in them.
>
> back at the Robertson Panel and his own participation in it:
>
> in the panel's discussion and report. The panel underestimated
> the long duration of public interest in UFOs, which also puzzles
> coverage of the sky. Although the panel did not go as far as
> of UFO reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been
> explained."
>
> cites Ed Condon's personal conclusions and tried to pass them off
> in 1969!) when it's not. Page, by the way, has also characterized the
> Condon study as "unscientific" and "inconsistent."
>
> reports uncritically, even to the point of ignoring important content. I
> think the answer to that question is pretty straightforward.
>
> Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
> http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
> ____________________________________________________________________________
He is right to ignore them since they have NO scientific content and
anyone who states otherwise is either a total liar, a total fool or
most likely BOTH.
robert place
> >>refer to the five large scientific studies about UFOs,
> >
> >Is Friedman referring to the Condon Committee, the Robertson
> >Panel, the O'Brien Committee, the CIA study Panel, and Blue
> >Book?
> >
> >They all decided that there was nothing worth investigating
> >in them.
>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>I'll have large responses up on this tomorrow, one comment stood out though:
>
>>>A. Although some of Condon's close friends maintained he was, Condon's
>>>own actions tell a different story. <snip>
>>
>>Who should know!
>>
>>All of Condon's friends have supported him.
>
>Which in turn Twitch's uses as "evidence" that Condon was objective, had
>the best intentions, etc. etc.
>
>"All of Condon's friends have supported him."
Yes. They were all professional people of renown and noted
for integrity.
>
>I don't think I need to add anything here<snip>
I doubt that you can other than by innuendo.
>
>Did I also mention that the head of the NAS review panel was a former
>student and personal friend of Condon too? That's some more context
>to ponder.
>
Wow!
So, even Jean is admitting that since Levine had just
graduated from the UofA with his Phd and was a follower of
McDonald's, he should, on that basis, have been disqualified
according to the contract for the study?
Remember, the contract had the No-MacDonald clause since
they didn't want rabid believers but wanted people with an
open mind.
And, Saunders had visited the headquarters of NICAP several
months before the USAF contract to meet with NICAP officials
and to join the organization! Saunders knew that this
should disqualify him from the study since he was involved
in writing the proposal!
That is more context to ponder.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
<snip>
>NICAP severed its ties and understandably stopped supplying the
>project with fresh data<snip>
Wow!
They stopped supplying the Condon Committee with fresh data!
But they didn't stop supplying Saunders and Levine with
fresh data. Those two had full access to NICAP and all of
the Condon Committee evidence that had been investigated.
Yet, what did they use as evidence that the Condon Committee
was wrong?
One of their Major points was:
"The computer analysis of orthoteny has now shown that there
is only one chance in ten to the thirty-ninth power that the
sightings did not involve ETI."
For those not familiar with the concept of Orthoteny, it is
the unsupported belief that if someone plots all the
locations of all reported UFO sightings on a given day, he
would discover that they fell along straight lines that
aliens were using to do a systematic surveillance of the
planet Earth. Even though, Levine, who is spouting that
nonsense above, knew that the vast majority of the UFO
sightings were of known objects.
How can you arrive at the conclusion that:
"The computer analysis of orthoteny has now shown that there
is only one chance in ten to the thirty-ninth power that the
sightings did not involve ETI." if most of the sightings are
no valid?
You can't from the data!
There is no basis for this belief, which shows quite clearly
that the claim that there is only one chance in ten to the
thirty-ninth power that the sightings didn’t involve ETI is
more a religious belief than a scientific one. Yet, this
nonsense was being proposed as evidence against the
committee results by one of the fired senior PIs of the
Condon Committee who disagreed with those results!
(And, it isn't Twitch who is saying that they were guilty of
unprofessional conduct but Keyhoe of NICAP!)
The Mariana photographs, and third, Ubatuba magnesium were
the other two major areas which the ex-Condon Committee
members tried to use to discredit the Condon Committee and
to "prove" that there was ETI in them thar hills!
Yet, neither of these two cases were cases that Saunders or
Levine had investigated! Craig is the person who
investigated those cases!
Craig in a low-key response stated:
"I would not like to have to defend Dr. Saunder’s conviction
that the Mariana is strong evidence that we have
extraterrestrial visitors."
And, on the final case, Craig said, again in a low-key:
"I was particularly surprised to see Ubatuba magnesium
listed in Saunders’s alternative report as one of the
"facts" from which he concluded that extraterrestrial
intelligence stand as the "least implausible" explanation of
"real UFOs" (Saunders, p. 237). The analysis I had done on
the magnesium samples showed this material not to be unique
and probably never part of a manufactured vehicle… The story
of the origin of the Ubatuba samples as fragments of a
disintegrated flying disc itself was one of the most highly
suspect of the UFO reports we encountered."
And as early as 1940, Dow had manufactured samples of
Magnesium with virtually the same concentration of Strontium
as the Ubatuba magnesium samples.
Even Randle, though he liked the case, wrote that:
"In the end, no positive conclusion can be drawn."
So, having full access to the Complete records of
investigation of the Condon Committee and of NICAP, the two
researchers couldn't provide even compelling evidence that
we were being visited.
In fact, they couldn't even provide decent evidence.
Or why the Condon Committee recommendations are not
incorrect!
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>Which in turn Twitch's uses as "evidence" that Condon was objective, had
>>the best intentions, etc. etc.
>>
>>"All of Condon's friends have supported him."
>
>Yes. They were all professional people of renown and noted
>for integrity.
More Twitch doubletalk. I'm saying that Condon would always
appear more favorable to his friends, more than he might be in
real life. That's just a fact, everyone knows the "my son would
not have done that" line. Friends, or relatives, are usually hardly
objective.
In any case, it doesn't matter because we have plenty of other data
accessible for review. Namely Condon's actions and his writings. It
is that part which speaks volumes. It's the part Twitch wants to hear
nothing about.
>>I don't think I need to add anything here<snip>
>
>I doubt that you can other than by innuendo.
That wasn't innuendo, that was noting the fact that you're quoting
people who are likely to be prejudiced.
>>Did I also mention that the head of the NAS review panel was a former
>>student and personal friend of Condon too? That's some more context
>>to ponder.
>>
>
>Wow!
>
>So, even Jean is admitting that since Levine had just
>graduated from the UofA with his Phd and was a follower of
>McDonald's, he should, on that basis, have been disqualified
>according to the contract for the study?
No, I am saying one should be catious. That applies to the head of the NAS
panel who reviewed the report, and that applies to Levine.
Unlike you, I am objective. I can admit that Levine and Saunders were biased
towards the ETH, and that Saunders' stuff on orthoteny makes no sense.
You however are incapable of admitting anything that would hurt your position
and that makes you, IMO, a hypocrite and a bigot.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>One of their Major points was:
>
>"The computer analysis of orthoteny has now shown that there
>is only one chance in ten to the thirty-ninth power that the
>sightings did not involve ETI."
>
>For those not familiar with the concept of Orthoteny, it is
>the unsupported belief that if someone plots all the
>locations of all reported UFO sightings on a given day, he
>would discover that they fell along straight lines that
>aliens were using to do a systematic surveillance of the
>planet Earth. Even though, Levine, who is spouting that
>nonsense above, knew that the vast majority of the UFO
>sightings were of known objects.
>
>How can you arrive at the conclusion that:
>"The computer analysis of orthoteny has now shown that there
>is only one chance in ten to the thirty-ninth power that the
>sightings did not involve ETI." if most of the sightings are
>no valid?
>
>You can't from the data!
And I agree! I think Saunders went overboard with the orthoteny
stuff.
>Craig in a low-key response stated:
>
>"I would not like to have to defend Dr. Saunder’s conviction
>that the Mariana is strong evidence that we have
>extraterrestrial visitors."
>
>And, on the final case, Craig said, again in a low-key:
Actually, I would be inclined to agree here too.
>Even Randle, though he liked the case, wrote that:
>
>"In the end, no positive conclusion can be drawn."
Which I even agree with!
>Or why the Condon Committee recommendations are not
>incorrect!
I dealt with this in my other posts. The Committee recommendations
were really Condon's recommendations, Twitch knows this but he
keeps dancing around it.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>In 1980, one of the Panel's members, Dr. Thorton Page, reflected back on
>>his participation, he wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>Thus substantiating that the panel's assessment was not a fair one.
>>
>Sorry, but there was more than one person on the panel!
>
>You are quoting one person and extrapolating that to the
>others because of your beliefs.
I'm quoting a renowned and at that time vocal UFO skeptic who was
there, and a panel member. I didn't invent the Page quote, Twitch.
>What did H. P. Robertson think of the Panel's assessment?
>
>What did Samuel A. Goudsmit think of the Panel's assessment?
>
>What did Luis Alvarez think of the Panel's assessment?
>
>What did Lloyd Berkner think of the Panel's assessment?
Obviously they all agreed with it at that time. Page did too. All you have
is the old Panel recommendation, I can cite a panel member who, while
still a skeptic, admitted the panel had been unfair in its assessment.
>What did the customer think of the Robertson Panel's
>assessment?
Oh, I'm sure the CIA was happy with it.
>After the Robertson Panel the CIA dropped its plans to
>obtain a National Security Council authorization to launch
>its own UFO investigation.
>
>Memo regarding monitoring UFOs, July 3, 1953:
>Todos M. Odarenko wrote that he "planned to handle the
>project with a part-time use of (an) analyst and a file
>clerk. To provide filing functions, one additional cabinet
>will be required."
>
>This was purely to monitor the other agencies results.
>
>In a CIA memo dated Aug. 8, 1955, from the chief of the Div.
>responsible for monitoring UFOs:
>"In view of the fact that no positive intelligence of
>significance has been produced under the subject (UFOs)
>project, it is recommended that the project be terminated
>and the files thereof be placed in dead storage."
>
>Your claim that "that the panel's assessment was not a fair
>one" is not substantiated.
More claptrap. You cite a few CIA reports that followed up on the Panel's
recommendation and this then becomes your "evidence" that the Panel's
assessment is correct.
This is logically incorrect. Suppose I tell A that it is fine to shoot person
B, A then shoots B. Does A's action alone _justify_ my order? No, not
in a million years.
The panel's recommendations themselves are neither evidence that they
are necessarily accurate. Instead of disproving, you are only blathering.
>>Q. In the case of the Condon study, were the Committee members' findings
>>fairly represented in Condon's "Summary of the Study" chapter?
>>
>>A. Although Condon had made promises to NICAP and some of his staff that
>>they would be, the evidence for this is lacking <snip>
>
>I notice once again you rely on only one person's judgement.
>
>This is akin to saying that blacks have lower intelligence
>because Shockley said so. After all, he was a nobel prize
>winner.
>
>This is akin to saying that Vitamin C can cure all sorts of
>diseases because Pauling said so. After all, he was a nobel
>prize winner.
I already commented on this a few times. The analogy here is absolutely
flawed. Sturrock has supported his "judgement" with evidence from both
the NAS review and the Condon report, not just Sturrock "said so" as is
the case in your flawed examples.
>None of the Committee members who weren't let go for cause
>has said this.
>
>What did Dr. Craig say about this?
>
>What did Dr. Rhine say about it?
>
>What did Dr. Roach say about it?
Roach is one of the people Sturrock had contacted to read his article
and submit comments if necessary, which Roach did.
>In fact, some of them have said just the opposite.
"Some of them" always seems to translate into "Condon made a promise
to Craig" when Twitch posts.
>"At the end of our all-day discussion, we did not know what
>Dr. Condon would write as "recommendations." We were
>confident, however, that those recommendations would reflect
>the actual findings of the Colorado Project (Condon
>Committee)"
Another repetition. I have dealt with this exactly two times already, Twitch
can't refute my arguments so he does some heavy editing instead. Here's
what I said before on this.
To verify wether Condon's "Summary of the Study" did in fact fairly represent
the findings of the investigative committee, you do not rely on a quote which:
1) mentions only a promise and is thus not evidence that the promise was
put to practice.
2) dates _before_ Condon committed the recommendations to paper.
What you've posted is someone's *expectation* of what would happen, not
evidence that it did happen. The only way to see if it did, is to compare the
Condon summary with the staff findings.
>>==========================================================================
>>3. The NAS review
>>
>>Q. But isn't the National Academy of Sciences' review of the Condon
>>study not compelling evidence that Condon's assessment, that nothing
>>useful would be gained from studying UFOs, is accurate?
>>
>>A. Not if it was a flawed review. The NAS quotes can be compared to
>
><snip[>
>> Seven weeks is
>>a very short time for the panel members to digest a report on what was
>>probably an unfamiliar subject. <snip>
>
>God, he makes a comment like this and doesn't even know if
>it is true!
>
>PROBABLY!
>
>Seven weeks is a decent time to review such a report and all
>of the other documents that they were given, such as the 3
>reports from MacDonald. I've worked with the NAS, these
>guys are neither dummies nor do they ignore the data.
But they did, Sturrock proved it by noting the fact that the NAS review
copied many of Condon's mistakes.
Of course that evidence Twitch deleted zealously from his reply.
>Why haven't you posted any comments from the NAS members?
This is ludicrous. I cited Sturrock who mentioned the NAS panel and the fact
that it had endorsed the Condon study.
Why did you lie that Brian never mentioned it either?
Why did you lie that Geoff Price never mentioned any of the favorable Condon
reviews?
>Gulf Breeze?
>
>Hell, more than half of the UFO 'researchers' believe it to
>be a hoax.
>
>Roswell?
>
>Where did that saucer crash?
I don't care. Just why are you obfuscating this discussion with irrelevant
babble?
>Condon looks better and better!
>
><snip of web sites that don't have any comments from the 90s
>by the AIAA>
The data is as old as the data you are continuously regurgitating,
Twitch, as is the Condon report.
Twitch is just playing the hypocrite here.
>>4. Support by the AAAS?
>>
>>Q. But the American Association for the Advancement of Science openly
>>supported the Condon study too, arguing that "The Colorado Study is
>>unquestionably the most thorough and sophisticated investigation of
>>the nebulous UFO phenomenon ever conducted." Right?
>>
>>A. Absolutely not! The quote originates from just a news article from
>>Science's news pages <snip>
>
>They did publish it!
>
>The fact that they didn't publish a rebuttal indicates that
>they agreed with the news item.
Twitch, there is no "they", there is only Philip M. Boffey. Boffey had written
more news articles on the Condon study. One of these also has testimony
by McDonald that the study was biased. Shall we then take the absence
of a rebuttal to McDonald's statements in Science as "evidence" that the
AAAS also agreed with McDonald?
No, because it was just a news item, not an official response or statement
by the AAAS.
Is the Boffey article to be taken as officially representing an AAAS UFO
assessment?
No, Boffey just glazed the news item with his own views on the matter.
By your (insane) logic, the editor of the AIAA's A&A journal must have agreed
with and been officially representing AIAA matters when he made the decision
to publish Friedman's "flying saucers are real" letter in one of their issues.
By your (insane) logic, the editor of JUFOS, and CUFOS are in agreement with
every paper or comment published in the JUFOS' pages unless CUFOS, as a
single entity, openly dissents.
>>Interestingly, Science was later criticized for treating it only as a
>>news item, no less in their own pages. In his review of Hynek's UFO
>>book, Dr. Bruce Murray wrote on Science's coverage of the Condon issue:
>>
>>"It is also disappointing that Science, which has earned the respect
>>of U.S. scientists and occasionally the enmity of U.S. bureaucrats
>>by providing an independent forum for controversial views, failed to
>>publish a responsible rebuttal to the Condon report, <snip>
>
>Oh, now there is an impartial and unbiased source!
More pointless and unsupported innuendo.
>>==========================================================================
>>5. Condon's prejudice
>>
>>Q. But surely Condon was still open and unbiased with respect to the
>>study?
>>
>>A. Although some of Condon's close friends maintained he was, Condon's
>>own actions tell a different story. <snip>
>
>Who should know!
>
>All of Condon's friends have supported him.
This is another pathetic comment that I think warrants no extra comment,
it's telling enough by itself, and the reason why I prefer to look at Condon's
actions instead of impressions of Condon by his close friends.
[testimony of Condon's friends snipped]
>But, even one of the dissidents in her resignation letter
>wrote:
>
>"After the last couple of days, I agree that I, and some
>others, have made a very tragic mistake in not coming to you
>long before this. But, that is in retrospect and, at the
>time, I personally did not feel that you would have been as
>sympathetic to our feelings as you have been."
>
>So, Condon was sympathetic and listened when she approached
>him and that was after she had been what Keyhoe called
>disloyal!
Keyhoe, according to you, called the leaking of confidential information
"disloyal." I have seen no evidence that Armstrong was involved in any
of that.
>>""First, has Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?" When Low shook his
>>head <snip>
>
>When Keyhoe was asked the same question at the press
>conference, he said he had interviewed a "few". When asked
>which ones, he wouldn't answer!
>
>This merely shows that Jean is ignorant of how such a study
>is done.
No, it shows people tend to disagree over how to accomplish a goal. Hynek,
Saunders, McDonald, Powers, and various other scientists, agreed that Ed
Condon should have taken an active part in the study.
>>Position statements from Ed Condon also appeared in the press. And one
>>time, he was quoted as having said, with the investigations barely just
>>three months old, that: "my attitude right now is that there's nothing
>>to it, but I am not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year".
>
>This is true, but not the whole story.
>
>"Dr. Condon had taken so much criticism - some of it grossly
>unwarranted, and some earned by premature and careless
>statements about the project made at public gatherings -
>that he obviously regretted ever agreeing to direct the
>study."
>
>"When the project was over, Dr. Condon considered the
>editorial in THE NATION to have been the most prescient of
>the many editorial comments made when the project was
>announced. THE NATION had declared, "If Dr. Condon and his
>associates come up with anything less than the little green
>men from Mars, they will be crucified."
No, Condon just had to recommend further scientific study. Most would
have found that satisfying. None of your quotes negate, or weaken, the
evidence that Condon had his mind made up when he started the project.
>>Alan Hynek later commented on this: "Here we have Condon saying the
>>project is not worthwhile (a few months later he asked for $259,146 to
>>continue the work)...
>
>Which shows where Hynek's heart really was!
Twitch is misreading again. The "later he asked for $259,146 to continue the
work" is a reference to Condon, not to Hynek.
>Which has been justified by the total lack of progress made
>by any of the UFO organizations and the lack of decent
>evidence for any further study even today.
There was decent evidence then as there is now. Armstrong wrote:
"I think there is fairly good consensus among the team members that there is
enough data in the UFO question to warrant further study."
>>Hynek had also met with Condon and the staff two weeks after the contract
>>for the Colorado study had been signed. Hynek recalls Condon already had
>>a "basically negative attitude" then.
>
>Isn't it funny that Hynek didn't state that at the time but
>only much later when it became obvious that the committee
"[But I] felt that this was only the natural skepticism on the part of a
scientist [Condon] who had not yet examined the data" [Hynek, "the
UFO experience"].
>wasn't going to go along with his idea of a gov't agency to
>do UFO research headed up by Hynek?
Where exactly does Hynek express this as the only viable option.
>>Not exactly my idea of a flattering picture.
>>
>Of Hynek?
>
>Definitely!
You must be kidding!
>>A. The "trick" memo's context is actually quite clear <snip>
>
>Yes. But, it has nothing to do with the Condon Committee as
>it wasn't followed and Condon knew nothing of the memo until
>after it was released!
But Low's behavior and actions are certainly consistent with what
he had in mind for the project (his own words are in the memo).
>Saunders knew that Condon hadn't seen the memo and that the
>Committee hadn't followed it at all.
The committee hadn't followed it, sure. Which is why most of the
staff agreed that further UFO study would be advisable. But Low
certainly had followed his project outlining.
>This 'Fifth-Column' provided internal memos to NICAP and
>McDonald! These 'leaked' documents, with comments taken out
>of context, formed the basis of the Look article by Fuller
>which was published before the Condon Report was published!
Yet Twitch never manages to show how it was "taken out of context"
and that's because it's pretty clear:
"In order to undertake such a project, one has to approach it objectively.
That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things (UFOs) exist.
It is _not respectable_ to give _serious consideration_ to such a possi-
bility. Believers, in other words, remain outcasts... admitting such
possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would _lose_ more in
prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain by
undertaking the investigation."
"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."
>So, even by NICAP's opinion they were disloyal employees.
>
>One of the plotters who had given documents to Dr. MacDonald
Which documents? The "trick" memo? McDonald got that one from
Keyhoe.
>wrote in her letter of resignation:
>
>"After the last couple of days, I agree that I, and some
>others, have made a very tragic mistake in not coming to you
>long before this. But, that is in retrospect and, at the
>time, I personally did not feel that you would have been as
>sympathetic to our feelings as you have been."
Etc. etc. Twitch can't rebut the evidence that Condon misrepresented
his staff's findings. Instead, he puffs a fat smoke screen on supposed
"treachery" of most Comittee members because they became fed up
with Condon and Low's indiferences and bias and acted on it.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>Very clear here is how you put these to use, namely that 1) science
>>has adequately investigated UFOs but found "nothing worth studying"
>>and 2) that therefore no new scientific attention is warranted.
>>
>>This is a fair representation of your position.
>
>Sorry but it is just Jean's misuse of the English Language.
>
>
>Number 2 is only based on the present evidence that is
>known. If new evidence comes along, it might be different.
>
>That is the position of the vast majority of scientists,
>Jean.
It certainly could be (I've seen no recent poll), but that doesn't make
it necessarily true. Condon's recommendation, that nothing valuable for
science will come from the study of UFOs, has been the motivation here,
a motivation which is in dispute. If we were to dig a little further, I think
we would find that most scientists aren't even specifically aware of
Condon's exact wording but have a very simplified view of the Condon
study; That a number of cases were analyzed, and that every one of
them could be explained.
[I wrote:]
>>1. The reports are true and accurate in their assessments, and their
>>investigation was sound.
[Twitch responds:]
>Let's look at #1!
>
>The National Academy of Sciences said about the Condon
>Committee:
>
>"We think that the methodology and approach were well
>chosen, in accordance with accepted standards of scientific
>investigation....We are unanimous in the opinion that this
>has been a very creditable effort to apply objectively the
>relevant techniques of science to the solution of the UFO
>problem."
>
>Which certainly says that the Condon Committee reports are
>true and accurate in their assessments, and their
>investigation was sound.
>
>The NAS didn't only look at the Condon Committee report but
>at papers from both believers and skeptics. MacDonald had
>three of his papers reviewed!
>
>Hardly a myopic view.
Quite the contrary, you can't get any more "myopic". What Twitch
has done is to simply restate one of his arguments and ignore any
negating evidence. Evidently, Twitch uses a macro that allows him
to insert favorite clippings regardless of their soundness or any
previously posted critiques.
Twitch has dismissed/edited out Sturrock's criticisms of the NAS
report on the premise that it's just "one person's judgement" but
ignores that Sturrock supported his arguments with quotations and
comparisons (i.e. evidence) of the available Condon and NAS texts,
which Twitch has failed to rebut. Note that the AIAA too wrote in
their "appraisal of the problem" that "there are differences in
the opinions and conclusions drawn by the authors of the various
chapters, and there are differences between these and Condon's
summary. Not all conclusions contained in the report itself are
fully reflected in Condon's summary", which supports Sturrock's
observation strongly.
All this is highly irrelevant to the topic here. I don't contest these
claims nor do I necessarily agree with them either. If you want,
save them for a later debate.
>Funny, the American Association for the Advancement of
>Science in their magazine Science said:
>
>"The Colorado Study is unquestionably the most thorough and
>sophisticated investigation of the nebulous UFO phenomenon
>ever conducted."
Here Twitch snipped my clarification that the comment was made by
Philip M. Boffey on the "news and comment" pages of the magazine,
along with news about "federal rat control grants", news about an
"animal research center," etc.
The AAAS didn't "said", Boffey "said", Twitch. Any pretending on
your part that it's the opposite would be a total misrepresentation
of who really authored the Science news article.
>>Obviously, there's a vast difference between Twitch's
>>*interpretation* of these reports' value, and the actual value.
>
>Nope. Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring
>if there's any truth or validity to them.
A new macro, Twitch? I have provided evidence that the Panel
was not objective in its assessments. This then justifies my
statement that the way you perceive the value of the report
seems to be vastly different from its real value.
>Isn't it funny that Jean, Brian, Rudiak, Geoff Price used to
>tell us all about how bad the Condon Committee report was
>without ever once mentioning the National Academy of
>Sciences or any of the other evidence that the Condon
>Committee did a decent job?
I don't know what Geoff or Rudiak have said about this. I do
know that your claim that Brian nor I have mentioned it is a
bold-faced lie. Brian, for example, mentioned the NAS review
as early as 10 May 1996, in a post on the Condon Study. Brian
wrote:
"Now, let's take a look at the endorsement by the National Academy
of Sciences Panel. This panel reviewed the report and endorsed the
scope, methodology, and findings. However, here's another interesting
fact that the USAF omitted in their "fact sheet": the NAS cheated.
They only read Condon's summary, not the staff reviews, and it's
already been proven beyond any rational doubt that Dr. Condon
misrepresented, omitted, and distorted the conclusions of his staff.
For instance, the NAS repeats Condon's claptrap about photographic
evidence, stating that "35 photographic cases were investigated...
none proved to be real objects with high strangeness." This, of
course, is perfectly consistent with Condon's summary, but it is
at total variance with Dr. Hartmann's staff conclusions.
Now listen to Condon's conclusions. Dr. Condon's most influential
recommendation was that "further extensive study of UFOs probably
cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced
thereby." The NAS, of course, agreed, without noticing that Dr. Condon
distorted the conclusions of his own staffs! The UFO Subcommittee of
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), however,
gave a starkly contrasted review of the Condon report, that they "did
not find a basis in the report for his prediction that nothing of
scientific value will come of further studies." Why the difference?
Because the AIAA read the staff conclusions!"
>Just like Jean a while ago quoted part of the resignation
>letter from one of the conspirators but left out the part
>that said:
"Conspirators"? Great McCarthy reflex you have, Twitch. IMO,
Twitch's ass kissing of authority is highly amusing. Twitch
would kiss ass no matter the amount of warts. :)
>"After the last couple of days, I agree that I, and some
>others, have made a very tragic mistake in not coming to you
>long before this. But, that is in retrospect and, at the
>time, I personally did not feel that you would have been as
>sympathetic to our feelings as you have been."
>
>IOW, the conspirators didn't approach Condon as they were
>too busy plotting with MacDonald to destroy the Condon
>Committee!
Another attempt at blatant misrepresention by citing out of context!
Armstrong saying the "mistake in not coming to you long before this"
meant that the "team" members regretted not complaining sooner about
Low's indeferences and actions to Condon, *not* that they were "busy
plotting with McDonald to destroy the Condon Committee" which is
entirely Twitch's fiction as he tries to slant things to support his
online campaign. What Twitch didn't quote was Armstrong's explanation
why they hadn't approached Condon, in her own words:
"We felt that Bob [Low] did represent you, that he did talk to you
often, and that therefore you were well-informed on what he was
doing and what your position was."
>Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring if
>there's any truth or validity to them.
You did put that in a macro, didn't you?
>>What part of this don't you understand?
>
>I understand that Jean is just citing opinions he likes
>without caring if there's any truth or validity to them.
More fallacious TwitchMacro action/blather.
>>Great comeback Twitch. You don't even identify who said that.
>>In any case, it's not important anyway.
>
>I have frequently done so. It was Craig. One of the PIs on
>the Condon Committee that Levine tried to join the revold.
>Craig was a believer but got maligned since he wouldn't
>stoop to the tactics of Saunders and Levine.
>
>Craig even went to Condon and complained about a change in
>the report that a tech editor made since he felt that it
>changed the meaning. Condon sent out word that all changes
>to their words must be approved by the scientists.
>
>Hardly a closeminded attitude.
But Condon didn't change any of their words, he just misrepresented
them in his own summary!
>>The "evidence", to counter my suggestion that the conclusions
>>were Condon's own and not those of his staff, offered is nothing
>>more than a personal promise by Condon made to, presumably,
>>a staff member of the committee (Craig?).
>>
>>I am underwhelmed.
>>
>>To see if Ed Condon's "Summary of the Study" did in fact fairly
>>represent the findings of the investigative committee the logical
>>choice would be *not* to rely on someone's recollection of what
>>Condon may have promised (even if Condon made that promise
>>it is _not_ evidence that he put it to _practice_), but to actually
>>compare the Condon summary with the staff's findings.
>
><snip>
Oh yes, Twitch's patented and renowned "scissors". Note how he
has clipped my evidence and then simply restates his old claims
below as nothing was said about them!
>What were the conclusions, Jean?
>
>"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
>study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
>scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
>as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
>extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
>expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
As has been adequately shown, the majority of the Committee staff
did not share this opinion, meaning Condon was presenting his own
as the project's findings. As Mary Armstrong wrote:
"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens and
others have all arrived at such radically different conclusions
from Bob's? It is not my impression that they came into the
project with any particular bias concerning the UFO problem. I
think there is fairly good consensus among the team members that
there is enough data in the UFO question to warrant further study."
Why did Condon misrepresent his staff's findings, Twitch?
Why did Condon advise against further study when his staff didn't
agree with that point of view?
Why are you passing off Condon's prejudiced conclusions as being
those of his staff?
>All the years that have since passed have shown that to be a
>reasoned statement. We have loads of people 'researching'
>UFOs but nothing has come from it.
Of course not, because Twitch feels there are no 'novel' UFO
phenomena so your beliefs aren't exactly surprising.
>They can't even agree on where the Roswell spacecraft
>crashed, how many bodies there were or what the bodies
>looked like!
Twitch shifting context. He can't respond to the evidence that
there is a lack of correlation between Ed Condon's summary and
his staff's findings, so he dredges up non-related issues.
>Gulf Breeze? How many teams of 'researchers' has MUFON sent
>there to look at it? How many of them got fired for not
>coming up with the right answers?
Twitch shifting context. He can't respond to the evidence that
there is a lack of correlation between Ed Condon's summary and
his staff's findings, so he dredges up non-related issues.
See, I can do macro too. :)
>That Condon conclusion looks pretty good from here!
From the perspective of someone who is steadfastly convinced UFOs
are just hoaxes and misidentifications, I'm sure it does. :)
>What about future investigations?
>
> "We believe that any scientist with adequate training and
>credentials who does come up with a clearly defined,
>specific proposal for study (of UFOs) should be supported.
>We think that all the agencies of the federal government,
>and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to
>consider UFO research proposals along with others submitted
>to them on an open-minded basis."
>
>Wow! Asking scientists to come up with a clearly defined,
>specific proposal is certainly dispicable! No one in
>UFOlogy ever does that.
This is another untrue statement. The AIAA UFO committee proposed one
in their "Appraisal of the Problem" paper:
"The Subcommittee sees the only promising approach as a continuing,
moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by
objective means and on high-quality scientific analysis. This would
eliminate the difficult problem of witness credibility. An economic
and technically sound approach involving available remote-sensing
capabilities and certain software changes will require some thinking
on the side of the aerospace engineering community. Proposals along
this line are already in the hands of the Subcommittee."
As one can see, research proposals "were already in the hands of the
Subcommittee". James McDonald had prepared a research proposal too
which he elaborated on in his "Science, Technology, and UFOs" paper,
but it's obvious Twitch never read it.
And Hynek: "I submitted two serious research proposals, one to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the other to the
National Science Foundation. Both were summarily rejected not
because of scientific unworthiness (or so the rejection letters stated)
but because of lack of funds" [Hynek, "The UFO Experience].
>Notice that Condon didn't state that it shouldn't be
>researched, just that it should be judged like other
>proposals.
>
>What about setting up the government agency that Hynek and
>MacDonald wanted so desperately?
>
>"This formulation carries with it the corollary that we do
>not think that at this time the federal government ought to
>set up a major new agency, as some have suggested, for the
>scientific study of UFOs. This conclusion may not be true
>for all time. If, by the progress of research based on new
>ideas in this field, it then appears to be worthwhile to
>create such an agency, the decision to do so may be taken at
>that time…"
>
>That is the crux of the problem! Condon couldn't recommend
>setting up a new bureaucracy to study UFOs!
The crux of the problem is not this, but Condon's "further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby" which cut
off any possibility for further funded scientific interest.
>"It is our impression that the defense function could be
>performed within the framework established for intelligence
>and surveillance operations without the continuance of a
>special unit such as Project Blue Book, but this is a
>question for defense specialists rather than research
>scientists."
>
>Treat UFOs as you would any other flying object!
>
>Of course, we are told that the AF said that they were
>getting out of the UFO business and the fact that JANAP 146
>still mentions UFOs is trotted out as an old warhorse to
>"prove" this.
>
>The fact is the the AF said that they would follow the
>Condon Committee recommendations and treat UFOs through the
>normal intelligence system (i.e., JANAP 146).
This is true, but of no relevance.
[NAS]
>>>"We are unanimous in the opinion that this has been a very
>>>creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant
>>>techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem."
>>>
>>>Which is a very strong statement of support!
>>
>>Not if it was a flawed review.
>
>One person's opinion can hardly be called definitive,
>remember your comments on Craig!
Craig's comments were a promise that Condon didn't live up too,
which is vastly different from Sturrock's comment, who quotes
evidence directly from the report and the NAS review that the NAS
panel relied heavily on the Condon summary since it repeats many
of Condon's blatant errors.
>>The NAS quotes can be compared
>>with Sturrock's appraisal below<snip>
>
>Ah, Jean want Sturrock to be right, so he discounts the NAS!
>
>Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring if
>there's any truth or validity to them.
Note Twitch's evasive responses. There's nothing to Twitch's claim
that I "want Sturrock to be right" it's just that Sturrock managed
to support his claims with compelling evidence.
Vastly more accurate would be the statement, I think, that Twitch
needs the NAS review to support his anti-ufo stance, and thus has
no intention of ditching it regardless of its scientific validity.
>I checked a year or so ago and tried to find out what the
>peer-review process was at the JSE and how it was handled.
>I should have gotten a decent response since most
>professional journals are very careful in this area. The
>JSE didn't send me a copy of their procedures, they just
>told me that they did a good job of it!
A description of the peer-review process is contained in every JSE
issue in the back under "instructions to authors". All in all this
is just more evasive Twitching. He is not able to refute Sturrock's
arguments so he sets up a big strawman rather than dealing with the
issues raised.
>For an example of the slanting allowed in the JSE, go to
>their web site and look at:
> The Roswell UFO Crash: Myth or Reality?
>
>This is hardly a good press release and the strawmen that
>they set up is a disgrace.
In other words, anything published that's not consistent with Twitch's
point of view must be automatically "slanted" and contain "strawman".
Why can't you grasp the fact that people can, and will disagree with
you about Roswell? You are _not_ the embodiment of Absolute Truth,
Twitch.
>>The American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics neither
>>supported the NAS review nor Condon's assement, and noted that
>>Condon had managed weave his own prejudices into the Project's
>>summary:
>>
>>"Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than
>>its title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions.
>>Making value judgements was no doubt one reason why Condon
>>was asked to handle the project. One is happy to obtain the jud-
>>gement of so experienced and respected a man; but one need
>>not agree with it. The UFO Subcommittee did not find a basis in
>>the report for his prediction that nothing of scientific value will
>>come of further studies."
>
>The UFO Subcommittee was clearly wrong. We have had loads
>of people running around investigating UFOs for decades now
Another TwitchEvasion. I posted the AIAA quote to illustrate that
Condon's "Summary of the Study" did not adequately represent that
of his staff. But I'll comment briefly.
First of all, you didn't qualify your statement properly. We "have
had loads of" amateurs without significant funding "investigating"
UFOs, yes. Placed in that context, I'm not very surprised at the
absence of any significant breakthroughs.
Also, one could equally say that the "misperception-hallucination
explains them all" has had 50 years to prove itself, and has also
failed. I think you will also find people who will argue that we
have made progress because new information on (older) cases has
surfaced (e.g. through FOIA), reinforcing their anomalous nature
and strengthening the proposition that UFOs, as novel phenomena,
do exist (be they extraterrestrial or natural phenomena). One of
the AIAA's comments is however still relevant, namely that without
coordinated research efforts the "controversy can be expected to
suffer further polarization and confusion".
>and even MUFON admits that none of the questions that they
>asked 25 years ago has been answered.
I don't know what MUFON admits, MUFON is a collaboration of lots of
people. I doubt you'll get a single answer that satisfies everyone.
>One of the judgements Condon made was:
>
>"I had some awareness of the passionate controversy that
>swirled around the subject, contributing added difficulty to
>the task of making a dispassionate study...Had I known of
>the extent of the emotional commitment of the UFO believers
>and the extremes of conduct to which their faith can lead
>them, I certainly would never have undertaken the study."
>
>Jean certainly makes him look right here!
Nah, it's just one of Condon's ad hominems directed at his
critics. That's the most Condon ever mustered.
He never really wanted the study in the first place, Condon
said that he was never "enchanted" with it from the start.
And Low later commented that the only real reason they took
it was because it was hard to say no to the Air Force.
>>Here's an interesting piece excerpted from one of Keyhoe's books.
>>Keyhoe recalls how he and Gordon Lore (then the assisent director
>>of NICAP) met with Low (Condon project administrator) to discuss
>>NICAP relations with the Condon study group. Keyhoe wrote:
>>
>>""First, has Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?" When Low
>>shook his head I added, "Does he ever intend to?"
>
>When Keyhoe was asked if he had ever interviewed a UFO
>witness or done field research, he said several times. When
>asked which ones he wouldn't answer.
Would you mind posting a reference for this, this seems to be
typical debunker hearsay. Even better, post an excerpt.
>Condon wasn't supposed to be a field investigator but the
>senior scientist and project manager.
>
>The project manager doesn't do this sort of work. Which you
>would know if you knew more about science projects.
As far as I am concerned this is left at the discretion of the
project head himself, there's no rule that prevents it. YMMV.
>Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
>Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
>
>"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
>office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
>He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
>for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
>million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
>eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
>remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
>remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
>the one to discover it.'
>
>This is backed up by the NICAP in the January-Feburary 1967
>issue of THE UFO INVESTIGATOR. "It is probably fair to say
>that the scientists on the project range from open-minded
>skeptics to moderately convinced 'believers'..."
>
>Isn't it amazing how their opinions changed when the
>investigation didn't find what they wanted it to find?
More TwitchDistortions. No, it's not amazing to see someone's
opinions change when new evidence suggests the project wasn't
going to be as objective as has been hoped.
The NICAP quote is dated Jan/Feb 67 meaning it was written up
in December or so. NICAP and pretty much everyone was pleased
at that time simply because science was now going to take the
first serious, and without prejudice, look at the subject, or
so they thought. NICAP's hopes were dimming though and here's
the part you won't see Twitch write about.
Only about three months into the project, Condon caused a big
internal crisis by publicly stating that he thought UFOs were
nonsense and that this too would be his conclusion in a year.
UFOs, Condon said, "are not the business of the Air Force...
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." "with a smile" the article said, Condon added,
"but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year."
So it's not at all surprising to see a favorable NICAP review
which dates, importantly, *before* Condon had made any public
comments that were negative in content, and before he openly
started showing interest in only crackpot UFO cases. If NICAP
had been aware of his bias you can bet they'd have phrased it
very differently.
>What Keyhoe didn't say is that Saunders had already handed
>them a copy via MacDonald during a secret meeting before
>this where they plotted how to "engineer a confrontation"!
>
>Notice that Jean doesn't mention what Keyhoe said about
>Saunders and Levine!
>
>Their conduct was sufficiently unprofessional that, when
>asked, Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing
>admitted that if an employee of his acted this way "I'd
>probably fire him. I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
Would you mind posting context and a reference?
Whatever the accuracy of the quote, this is really just Twitch
dancing around the real issues. From what I've seen Twitch post
on this matter, he's making mountains out of molehills. Keyhoe
seems to only express conception for Condon's decision to fire
both men for insubordination.
><snip>
>>
>>NICAP severed its ties and understandably stopped supplying the
>>project with fresh data, NICAP felt betrayed. As Saunders would
>>say to Keyhoe, "I knew he was negative. But this..."
>
>
>Considering if you read the memo, you'll see that this memo
>had absolutely no impact on the Condon Committee. Saunders
I think its content is rather straightforward, and your attempt
to downplay it is just wasted effort IMO.
>knew this but was prepared to use any strategem to bring
>down the project since he couldn't control it.
>
>Condon didn't even know of the existance of the memo!
That's what he says. In any case, Low knew about it and his actions
certainly are consistent with what he had outlined for the project!
>>Twitch feels NICAP, Saunders, etc. turned on Condon and were
>>thus "disloyal," "dishonest" and all that crap.
>
>NO. That was Keyhoe's opinion!
So you don't agree with Keyhoe on this? Yes or no?
>Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing admitted that
>if an employee of his acted this way "I'd probably fire him.
>I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
Which suggests only that Keyhoe could understand why Condon
chose to fire Levine and Saunders. Big deal!
>>I think the evidence
>>tells a different story, they got fed up with Condon's indifference,
>>prejudices, and promises which turned out to be nothing but hot
>>air.
>
>More distortions from Jean!
>
>At the very beginning of the study, Saunders had already had
>his mind fully made up! He wrote: "I had maintained that a
>'government conspiracy' to conceal the 'truth about UFOs'
>from the public was an even more likely hypothesis than the
>ETI."
Let's see, I state that Condon was prejudiced, etc. He says I'm
wrong but offers no evidence and starts to rant on Saunders and
his ideas instead. What you're saying isn't anything new, Twitch.
You already posted that NICAP qoute which said that the people
on the project ranged "from open-minded skeptics to moderately
convinced believers."
>Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
>Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
>
>"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
>office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
>He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
>for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
>million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
>eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
>remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
>remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
>the one to discover it.'
And contradicted by all the successive evidence that Condon had
his mind made up when he started the project. Twitch prefers to
cite Condon's close friends' impressions of Condon, rather than
to look for actual evidence of anti-ufo bigotry of which there is a lot.
In fact, Twitch even admits as much in his latest post, saying:
"All of Condon's friends have supported [Condon]."
What else should Condon have expected from them *but* support?
The likelihood that any of his "friends" (a very important fact
the significance of which flew over Twitch's head) would openly
criticize him just seems small.
Which is why I have suggested to look at Condon's actions rather
than how his close "friends" perceived him. Twitch ignores that
sort of evidence, and prefers to hear Condon's friends instead.
>>>Dr. Condon wrote of his frustrations regarding the
>>>treacherous, disloyal, and dishonest conduct of some of the
>>>believers both on the project and off of it when he wrote:
>>
>>"Treacherous," "disloyal," "dishonest," yup, McCarthy would
>>have been mighty proud of Twitch. :)
>
>Then he would have been proud of Keyhoe too!
>
>Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing admitted that
>if an employee of his acted this way "I'd probably fire him.
>I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
>
>Doesn't Jean think it disloyal to meet with someone to plot
>the destruction of the work that they are being paid to do?
"Plot the destruction" is more melodramatic claptrap. Saunders
and Levine felt they had good reasons to go public, namely that
the project's conclusions were set in stone from the beginning.
They just did what any true scientists would do, go public and
expose the project's shortcommings, rather than kiss the boss'
ass.
If that bothers you, too bad. You'll just have to live with it.
>>More mistaken TwitchPresumptions. I don't have a copy of the
>>Saunders book nor have I read it.
>>
><snip>
>
>Nor have you apparently read much else about it except what
>some of the believers have written.
With which Twitch is trying to say that had I read some of the
skeptical stuff I would have ended up on Twitch's side. And as
with much of Twitch's stuff, he misses here too. I've read PJ
Klass' opinions on the Condon study, I have read the NAS report,
the Boffey Science article Twitch is fond of citing, I've read
the Condon report, Condon's paper in the BAS, etc.
Could you stop lying about what I have and have not read? The
same for other silly accusations, like "Jean is fond of Randle"
and "Jean likes to suck up to investigators".
John Cason
Jean van gemert <jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl> wrote in article
<6j52in$bp...@reader3.wxs.nl>...
...
> James McDonald had prepared a research proposal too which
> he elaborated on in his "Science, Technology, and UFOs" paper,
> And Hynek: "I submitted two serious research proposals, one to the
> National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the other to the
> National Science Foundation. Both were summarily rejected not
> because of scientific unworthiness (or so the rejection letters stated)
> but because of lack of funds" [Hynek, "The UFO Experience].
Are those proposals published somewhere?
SPHINX Technologies
In article <3553a...@diana.idirect.com>,
Greg Matthews <matt...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry for interrupting this thread, but I have often wondered whether or not
>the scientific method as currently formulated and practised, is applicable to
>the study of intelligent systems. We seem to have taken it for granted that
>the scientific method is the only valid approach to the study of most
>phenomena. The scientific method, however, was developed for the study of
>simple phenomena under controlled conditions and theories and models of
>scientific investigation were accepted on the basis of repeatability. My
>question is whether or not controlled conditions can be established for
>systems where intelligence is a major factor and whether or not repeatability
>can be expected in such cases.
At present, it is not resolved just WHAT phenomenon is being observed.
Some say it's just a physical phenomenon of atmospheric physics that isn't
properly understood. If they're right, then atmospheric physicists and
possibly scientists from related disciplines may be expected to make progress
using standard scientific techniques. (If they'd actually LOOK at the
phenomena seriously, that is.)
Others say it's ET visitors in their highly-advanced spacecraft or landing
craft. If *THEY* are right, then a more appropriate approach would be the
kind of approach we normally use when ANY foreign "visitors" are being
reported on our shores or on our skies. I.e. call out the counterintelligence
folks, the Customs agents, the State Department, the police department, or
whoever seems best qualified to deal with the perceived INTENTIONS and
CAPABILITIES of the visitors.
Since "they" (if it's this case) don't seem to be too keen on announcing
their presence and making open contact, the State Department and Customs
don't seem to be too relevant. Counterintelligence is more likely on
target. And they aren't in the habit of announcing *THEIR* intentions
and procedures, either.
In fact, come to think of it, the Government's entire posture relative to
UFOs seems to fit pretty closely the hypothesis that they've made their
decision, and it is indeed COUNTERINTELLIGENCE that has been handling the
problem these many years since Roswell. In *THAT* context, all the mystery,
the denials, the lame "explanations" etc. etc. all make perfect sense!
-John Sangster
Wellesley Hills, MA
SPHINX Technologies
In article <6j2bnn$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,Say, isn't Alvarez the Nobel laureate bozo who thought that Kennedy's
head snapping backward as visible in the Zapruder film was due to a
bullet entering from the BACK?
I wouldn't base much on HIS assessment of ANYTHING!
Twitch, are the OTHER guys in your list EQUALLY authoritative witnesses?
-John S.
Jean van gemert
In article, "John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>> James McDonald had prepared a research proposal too which
>> he elaborated on in his "Science, Technology, and UFOs" paper,
>....
>> And Hynek: "I submitted two serious research proposals, one to the
>> National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the other to the
>> National Science Foundation. Both were summarily rejected not
>> because of scientific unworthiness (or so the rejection letters stated)
>> but because of lack of funds" [Hynek, "The UFO Experience].
>
>Are those proposals published somewhere?
McDonal'd's proposal is outlined in the paper I referenced. I suppose there
would be more on it in McDonald's personal files that are accessible at the
University of Arizona. I don't know about Hynek's but I presume these were
filed at CUFOS.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
[...]
>And I agree! I think Saunders went overboard with the orthoteny
>stuff.
[...]
>
>Actually, I would be inclined to agree here too.
>[...]
>Which I even agree with!
I think a lot of hearts stopped when Jean actually agreed
with something I posted!
Let's see, Levine and Saunders had access to all of the
files from the Condon Committee and NICAP and they could
only come up with assinine arguments for the ETH. But then
you declare that the recommendations were from Condon only!
If the dissenters can come up with no better arguments than
these after having full access to the files of the Condon
Committee and NICAP, that shows that the recommendations of
the Condon Committee were sound!
>
>>Or why the Condon Committee recommendations are not
>>incorrect!
>
>I dealt with this in my other posts. The Committee recommendations
>were really Condon's recommendations, Twitch knows this but he
>keeps dancing around it.
>
They weren't as you well know. He held a one day meeting
with all of his people and got their recommendations prior
to writing the final recommendations!
Craig said that:
"At the end of our all-day discussion, we did not know what
Dr. Condon would write as "recommendations." We were
confident, however, that those recommendations would reflect
the actual findings of the Colorado Project (Condon
Committee)"
(this was written after the report was sent out!)
Dr. Craig got some pages back that had the tone altered to a
more cynical tone than he wanted. He felt that it was a
change of meaning and intent rather than an edit job. He
complained to Dr. Condon and the word went out from Dr.
Condon to the editors that "there would be no substantive
changes in material submitted without explicit and written
okay from the author."
The Chapter on Physical evidence stated:
"This project has found no physical evidence which, in
itself, clearly indicates the existence in the atmosphere of
vehicles of extraordinary nature. Belief in the existence
of such vehicles, if such belief is held, must rest on other
arguments."
OK, Jean is upset by this specific recommendation by the
Committee:
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
Many years have passed, Jean. There have been loads of
people doing essentially the same job as the Condon
Committee, NICAP, MUFON, CUFOS, CAUS, etc.
What evidence have they found to invalidate this conclusion?
Please be specific!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>>Which in turn Twitch's uses as "evidence" that Condon was objective, had
>>>the best intentions, etc. etc.
>>>
>>>"All of Condon's friends have supported him."
>>
>>Yes. They were all professional people of renown and noted
>>for integrity.
>
>More Twitch doubletalk. I'm saying that Condon would always
>appear more favorable to his friends, more than he might be in
>real life. [...]
They would also hear him talk about his opinions on the
subject and would thus be knowledgeable what he was
thinking.
>In any case, it doesn't matter because we have plenty of other data
>accessible for review. Namely Condon's actions and his writings. It
>is that part which speaks volumes. It's the part Twitch wants to hear
>nothing about.
>
>>>I don't think I need to add anything here<snip>
>>
>>I doubt that you can other than by innuendo.
>
>That wasn't innuendo, that was noting the fact that you're quoting
>people who are likely to be prejudiced.
ROTFLMAO!
Jean quotes MacDonald, Hynek, and others who have had their
minds made up for a long time and, apparently doesn't think
that they are prejudiced!
But, if Twitch posts a quote from someone who knew Condon
and who quotes what Condon said, that is inappropriate!
Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
the one to discover it.'
Which shows that Condon was a decent scientist on the
subject.
But, without physical evidence, it would take very strong
evidence to convince Condon that the area was worth
continued study.
Guess what?
The Chapter on Physical evidence stated:
"This project has found no physical evidence which, in
itself, clearly indicates the existence in the atmosphere of
vehicles of extraordinary nature. Belief in the existence
of such vehicles, if such belief is held, must rest on other
arguments."
No sufficently strong arguments were made.
>
>>>Did I also mention that the head of the NAS review panel was a former
>>>student and personal friend of Condon too? That's some more context
>>>to ponder.
>>>
>>
>>Wow!
>>
>>So, even Jean is admitting that since Levine had just
>>graduated from the UofA with his Phd and was a follower of
>>McDonald's, he should, on that basis, have been disqualified
>>according to the contract for the study?
>
>No, I am saying one should be catious. That applies to the head of the NAS
>panel who reviewed the report, and that applies to Levine.
But Levine should have been disqualified according to the
contract since no one with strong beliefs was supposed to be
on it!
Saunders should have been disqualified also. Saunders
definitely knew of the contract restrictions since he helped
write the proposal which became the contract!
Yet, neither of these men acted in a professional manner and
recused themselves.
Then they acted in such an unprofessional manner that even
Keyhoe of NICAP admitted he'd have fired them for their
actions.
>
>Unlike you, I am objective.
God, I love irony!
>I can admit that Levine and Saunders were biased
>towards the ETH, and that Saunders' stuff on orthoteny makes no sense.
But, they both knew that should have stopped their being on
the committee. They acted unprofessionally.
[...]
>a hypocrite and a bigot.
>
Yes, you are.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>>Very clear here is how you put these to use, namely that 1) science
>>>has adequately investigated UFOs but found "nothing worth studying"
>>>and 2) that therefore no new scientific attention is warranted.
>>>
>>>This is a fair representation of your position.
>>
>>Sorry but it is just Jean's misuse of the English Language.
>>
>>
>>Number 2 is only based on the present evidence that is
>>known. If new evidence comes along, it might be different.
>>
>>That is the position of the vast majority of scientists,
>>Jean.
>
>It certainly could be (I've seen no recent poll), but that doesn't make
>it necessarily true. Condon's recommendation, that nothing valuable for
>science will come from the study of UFOs, has been the motivation here,
>a motivation which is in dispute.[...]
Ok, Jean, what evidence has been found since the Condon
Committe report which invalidates this conclusion?
We have had loads of people (MUFON, NICAP, CUFOS, CAUS, etc)
doing essentially the same thing as the Condon Committee,
interviewing people, testing samples, etc.
Please list all the evidence that shows that the Condon
Committee was incorrect.
>
>[I wrote:]
>>>1. The reports are true and accurate in their assessments, and their
>>>investigation was sound.
>
>[Twitch responds:]
>>Let's look at #1!
>>
>>The National Academy of Sciences said about the Condon
>>Committee:
>>
>>"We think that the methodology and approach were well
>>chosen, in accordance with accepted standards of scientific
>>investigation....We are unanimous in the opinion that this
>>has been a very creditable effort to apply objectively the
>>relevant techniques of science to the solution of the UFO
>>problem."
>>
>>Which certainly says that the Condon Committee reports are
>>true and accurate in their assessments, and their
>>investigation was sound.
>>
>>The NAS didn't only look at the Condon Committee report but
>>at papers from both believers and skeptics. MacDonald had
>>three of his papers reviewed!
>>
>>Hardly a myopic view.
>
>Quite the contrary, you can't get any more "myopic".
Let's see, they are tasked with the task of checking if the
Condon Committee did its job in a proper and scientific
manner.
They not only review the work of the Committee but review
arguments for and against UFOs in general by the main
proponents and antagonists.
They then reach the conclusion that the job was done
properly.
That ain't myopic, Jean.
>What Twitch
>has done is to simply restate one of his arguments and ignore any
>negating evidence.
One person's opinion doesn't negate the work of a committee
that reviewed the evidence and disagreed with him.
>Evidently, Twitch uses a macro that allows him
>to insert favorite clippings regardless of their soundness or any
>previously posted critiques.
>
>Twitch has dismissed/edited out Sturrock's criticisms of the NAS
>report on the premise that it's just "one person's judgement"
Which it is.
>but
>ignores that Sturrock supported his arguments with quotations and
>comparisons (i.e. evidence) of the available Condon and NAS texts,
The Chapter on Physical evidence stated:
"This project has found no physical evidence which, in
itself, clearly indicates the existence in the atmosphere of
vehicles of extraordinary nature. Belief in the existence
of such vehicles, if such belief is held, must rest on other
arguments."
Now, without physical evidence, what evidence would be
sufficent to have you change your mind, Jean?
Without physical evidence, contradictory eyewitness evidence
doesn't do much to convince most scientists that this
exists.
That sentence alone if shown to scientists would have them
agree with the Condon Committee.
>which Twitch has failed to rebut.
[...]
See above.
>
>>[...]
>>>Twitch has cited the Robertson Panel report as evidence that science
>>>has "investigated [UFOs] and found the evidence laughable." Twitch
>>>has cited the Robertson Panel report as "looking hard", but not finding
>>>anything "worth studying."
>>>
>>>Yet Page, one of the original Robertson Panel members,
Page said this.
What about:
H. P. Robertson?
Samuel A. Goudsmi?
Luis Alvarez?
Lloyd Berkner?
>>has stated
>>>that the Panel "tended to ignore the five percent or ten percent of UFO
>>>reports that are highly reliable and have not as yet been explained."
>>
>>Since the data for those reports is not such that any
>>conclusions can be drawn.
>>
>>There is absolutely no evidence that the ETH applies to
>>those cases.
[...]
>All this is highly irrelevant to the topic here. I don't contest these
>claims nor do I necessarily agree with them either. If you want,
>save them for a later debate.
Let's see, no matter how through the investigation is,
basing it on eyewitness reports means that a certain
percentage will remain unexplained is highly irrelevant when
you use the fact that there are some unexplained cases to
argue against the Panel report?
The simple fact is that none of the cases show any reason to
keep looking.
The Robertson Panel was convened when the CIA was planning
to go to the NSC and ask permission to open their own
investigation of UFOs. They were sufficently happy with it
to dump the idea and put only one part-time analyst and one
part-time file clerk to tracking any info which showed that
they should rethink that decision.
After a few more years of absolutely no decent evidence, the
Div. head who was in charge of the operation in a CIA memo
dated Aug. 8, 1955:
"In view of the fact that no positive intelligence of
significance has been produced under the subject (UFOs)
project, it is recommended that the project be terminated
and the files thereof be placed in dead storage."
There has yet to come to light any evidence that they were
wrong after all these years of UFOlogists looking at
additional data.
>
>>Funny, the American Association for the Advancement of
>>Science in their magazine Science said:
>>
>>"The Colorado Study is unquestionably the most thorough and
>>sophisticated investigation of the nebulous UFO phenomenon
>>ever conducted."
>
>Here Twitch snipped my clarification that the comment was made by
>Philip M. Boffey on the "news and comment" pages of the magazine,
>along with news about "federal rat control grants", news about an
>"animal research center," etc.
The only complaint was from Hynek who had participated in
the secret meetings between MacDonald, Saunders, and Levine
and who wanted to head the new gov't agency that was to look
into UFOs.
If a magazine publishes something on the news and comment
page and then doesn't publish any articles against that
news, the assumption is that the magazine agrees with the
comment.
In American Law, silence is assent.
[...]
>>>*interpretation* of these reports' value, and the actual value.
>>
>>Nope. Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring
>>if there's any truth or validity to them.
>
>A new macro, Twitch? I have provided evidence that the Panel
>was not objective in its assessments. <snip>
No. You have provided one person's opinion. Nothing more.
<snip>
>>Just like Jean a while ago quoted part of the resignation
>>letter from one of the conspirators but left out the part
>>that said:
>
>"Conspirators"? Great McCarthy reflex you have, Twitch.
What do you call in Holland a group that meets secretly to
attempt to plan how best to discredit a committee that two
of the people are working on?
In the US, they are conspirators.
I notice you keep cutting the quote showing that even Donald
Keyhoe admitted he'd have fired them for their actions.
Their conduct was sufficiently unprofessional that, when
asked, Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing
admitted that if an employee of his acted this way "I'd
probably fire him. I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
They leaked a document to opponents, the quoted that
document out of context and pretended that Condon had seen
the memo and had agreed with it.
David R. Saundershad visited the headquarters of NICAP
several months before the USAF contract to meet with NICAP
officials and to join the organization! Saunders knew that
this would disqualify him from the study since he was
involved in writing the proposal!
Yet he stayed and later attempted do destroy the committee.
And, at the very beginning of the study, Saunders had
already had his mind fully made up! He wrote: "I had
maintained that a 'government conspiracy' to conceal the
'truth about UFOs' from the public was an even more likely
hypothesis than the ETI."
Yet, none of the documents which were submitted were used as
the basis of this belief. It was, however, the NICAP
official position!
McDonald was covertly writing to Armstrong and others in the
study group learning all the latest rumors and what the
committee was likely to decide so he could take action if
they came out with recommendations he didn't like. They did
and he acted.
Levine had just graduated from the UofA with his Phd and was
a follower of McDonald's and should, on that basis, have
been disqualified according to the contract for the study.
That would seem to fit the word conspiracy.
> IMO,
>Twitch's ass kissing of authority is highly amusing. Twitch
>would kiss ass no matter the amount of warts. :)
Oh, goody. Now we get to see the Jean van Gemet of a few
months ago.
When Jean starts losing an argument, he always goes for the
lowest insult he can think of.
>
>>"After the last couple of days, I agree that I, and some
>>others, have made a very tragic mistake in not coming to you
>>long before this. But, that is in retrospect and, at the
>>time, I personally did not feel that you would have been as
>>sympathetic to our feelings as you have been."
>>
[...]
>
>"We felt that Bob [Low] did represent you, that he did talk to you
>often, and that therefore you were well-informed on what he was
>doing and what your position was."
You realize that you have just demonstrated, like I hoped
you would, that the memo from Low wasn't official committee
policy and that Craig, who found the memo, was right and
that Condon neither saw the memo nor acted on it at all!
>
>>Jean is just citing opinions he likes without caring if
>>there's any truth or validity to them.
>
>You did put that in a macro, didn't you?
Nope. I'm just throwing back Jean's words in Jean's face
since they are totally appropriate.
>
>>>What part of this don't you understand?
>>
>>I understand that Jean is just citing opinions he likes
>>without caring if there's any truth or validity to them.
>
>More fallacious TwitchMacro action/blather.
Gee, those words were used by Jean. Twitch is just quoting
JeanMacro action/blather.
>
>>>Great comeback Twitch. You don't even identify who said that.
>>>In any case, it's not important anyway.
>>
>>I have frequently done so. It was Craig. One of the PIs on
>>the Condon Committee that Levine tried to join the revold.
>>Craig was a believer but got maligned since he wouldn't
>>stoop to the tactics of Saunders and Levine.
>>
>>Craig even went to Condon and complained about a change in
>>the report that a tech editor made since he felt that it
>>changed the meaning. Condon sent out word that all changes
>>to their words must be approved by the scientists.
>>
>>Hardly a closeminded attitude.
>
>But Condon didn't change any of their words, he just misrepresented
>them in his own summary!
I'm sorry but, unlike you, I have read a lot of the report
and the words are not misrepresented in the summary.
The committee members didn't feel that they were
misrepresented at all.
Without physical evidence and no reasonable hope of getting
any, Condon was correct.
What evidence have all of these UFOlogists come up with in
all these years since the Condon Committee which shows that
the recommendations were wrong?
NONE!
[...] to save bandwidth.
None of Jean's other words looked like they were any better.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies) wrote:
>In article <6j2bnn$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> <twi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>What did Luis Alvarez think of the Panel's assessment?
>>
>Say, isn't Alvarez the Nobel laureate bozo who thought that Kennedy's
>head snapping backward as visible in the Zapruder film was due to a
>bullet entering from the BACK?
Let's see, what expertise do you have to decide that this is
incorrect?
<snip>
Harry Bosch
> >>the best intentions, etc. etc.
> >>
> >
> >for integrity.
>
> More Twitch doubletalk. I'm saying that Condon would always
> appear more favorable to his friends, more than he might be in
> not have done that" line. Friends, or relatives, are usually hardly
> objective.
>
> accessible for review. Namely Condon's actions and his writings. It
> is that part which speaks volumes. It's the part Twitch wants to hear
> nothing about.
>
> >>I don't think I need to add anything here<snip>
> >
> >I doubt that you can other than by innuendo.
>
> That wasn't innuendo, that was noting the fact that you're quoting
>
> >>Did I also mention that the head of the NAS review panel was a former
> >>student and personal friend of Condon too? That's some more context
> >>to ponder.
> >>
> >
> >Wow!
> >
> >graduated from the UofA with his Phd and was a follower of
> >according to the contract for the study?
>
> No, I am saying one should be catious. That applies to the head of the NAS
> panel who reviewed the report, and that applies to Levine.
>
> towards the ETH, and that Saunders' stuff on orthoteny makes no sense.
>
Now IMO, this is one big POT calling the kettle black. . .
Harry
--
========================================
"The truth is the one thing that nobody will believe"
George Bernard Shaw
har...@chatlink.com
========================================
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) put on his best
Sunday manners and wrote:
>a hypocrite and a bigot.
Jean, if he acts at home the way he does in the newsgroups,
probably sent his Mother a Mother's day card that said:
"Fuck you! Strong letter to follow!"
Now, despite Jean's ranting, the most interesting thing that
Sturrock wrote was:
"Although both the director and the staff are cautious in
stating questions, the staff tend to emphasize challenging
cases and unanswered questions, whereas the director
emphasizes the difficulty of further study and the
probability that there is no scientific knowledge to be
gained."
Which as Sturrock should be well aware of, is the normal way
a scientific committee works. The young tigers are anxious
to proceed while the senior people stop and look at the
quality of the evidence before making a recommendation.
What Sturrock has written otherwise isn't terribly
important.
We do know that Condon gave his people complete freedom to
write whatever they wanted in their section of the report.
The fact is that they used this fully and wrote exactly what
they wanted in their own words. No changes were permitted
which would alter the meaning in any fashion whatsoever
without the agreement of the scientist who wrote the
original words.
Which is hardly the sign of a man who is driven and has made
up his mind. In fact, it is the sign of a man who is quite
reasonable and is willing to listen, as is shown by the
final all-day meeting where the scientists got to suggest
what they would like to see in the recommendations.
The real questions are:
1) Did the staff feel that their opinions were properly
reflected in the recommendations, as they expressed them in
that meeting; and
2) Can the conclusions be justified by the passage of time.
Jean doesn't like to hear Craig used as a source.
But Craig happens to be a believer.
Craig is also the only person I know of who was at the
meeting where the recommendations were discussed and has
written about it.
Craig thought that Condon had listened to the voice of the
staff and reflected that in a proper fashion.
If Condon hadn't done so, I have little doubt that MacDonald
and Hynek and Saunders and Levine and Keyhoe would have been
using the comments from the dissatisfied staffers as
ammunition against Condon.
They haven't done so.
They have used the Low memo despite their knowing that
Condon hadn't seen that memo and it had no impact on the
committee at all, which is intellectually dishonest.
(Jean approves of their use of the Low memo.)
So we have absolutely no evidence that the staff felt that
the recommendations were unacceptable to them or that their
input hadn't been properly taken into account.
While we do have evidence, from Craig, that the staff was
satisified that the recommendations reflected their input.
So, have the recommendations stood the test of time is the
only question remaining.
Without physical evidence, it would take very strong
evidence to convince any decent scientist that the area was
worth continued study.
Guess what?
The Chapter on Physical evidence stated:
"This project has found no physical evidence which, in
itself, clearly indicates the existence in the atmosphere of
vehicles of extraordinary nature. Belief in the existence
of such vehicles, if such belief is held, must rest on other
arguments."
I have asked Jean several times to post any evidence he has
which would invalidate the recommendation that:
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Jean hasn't done so.
Why?
There isn't any evidence yet! Despite all the efforts of
NICAP, MUFON, CUFON, CUFOS, CAUS, etc.
Which can be considered good evidence that Condon was
correct.
"We believe that any scientist with adequate training and
credentials who does come up with a clearly defined,
specific proposal for study (of UFOs) should be supported.
We think that all the agencies of the federal government,
and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to
consider UFO research proposals along with others submitted
to them on an open-minded basis."
That is clearly a decent suggestion and is applicable for
all areas of science.
"This formulation carries with it the corollary that we do
not think that at this time the federal government ought to
set up a major new agency, as some have suggested, for the
scientific study of UFOs. This conclusion may not be true
for all time. If, by the progress of research based on new
ideas in this field, it then appears to be worthwhile to
create such an agency, the decision to do so may be taken at
that time…"
This is the real recommendation that pissed off Hynek so
much since he wanted to be the head of the new gov't agency!
"It is our impression that the defense function could be
performed within the framework established for intelligence
and surveillance operations without the continuance of a
special unit such as Project Blue Book, but this is a
question for defense specialists rather than research
scientists."
A reasonable recommendation since Blue Book had found
nothing of real note, Grudge had the same problem, etc.
The AF followed this recommendation and now covers UFOs with
a few comments in JANAP 146 and the manual on reporting.
Despite Jean's ranting, raving, and usual ad hominems, the
Condon Committee recommendations look good and we have no
evidence whatsoever that the staff felt that the
recommendations didn't reflect their work or that they
hadn't been given a decent hearing.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>More Twitch doubletalk. I'm saying that Condon would always
>>appear more favorable to his friends, more than he might be in
>>real life. [...]
>
>They would also hear him talk about his opinions on the
>subject and would thus be knowledgeable what he was
>thinking.
Which is again useless because friends tend to perpetuate a picture that is
vastly more flattering and softening than it usually really is.
Glad we are then that Condon talked about "his opinions" in public himself,
and quite a different picture emerges. Just shortly after the project had
started its investigations, Condon was commenting in public that
UFOs "are not the business of the Air Force... 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." "with a smile" the article
said, Condon added, "but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for
another year."
Yes, Twitch, we know what Condon "was thinking." Not because of the
anecdotes of Condon's friends, but by his own actions.
>Jean quotes MacDonald, Hynek, and others who have had their
>minds made up for a long time and, apparently doesn't think
>that they are prejudiced!
More useless innuendo. Hynek and McDonald used to be skeptics
(e.g. see how Hynek explained cases in the Blue Book files, or his
very early statements on the topic).
Twitch deems they are "prejudiced" for not sharing Twitch's point of
view only.
>But, if Twitch posts a quote from someone who knew Condon
>and who quotes what Condon said, that is inappropriate!
>
>Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
>Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
>
>"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
>office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
>He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
>for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
>million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
>eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
>remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
>remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
>the one to discover it.'
>
>Which shows that Condon was a decent scientist on the
>subject.
It shows no such thing, Twitch!
It only shows Brandscomb believed Condon to be a decent scientist,
and would be too in investigating UFOs.
To verify the accuracy of Branscomb's assessment we compare it with
Condon's public comments, which turns out not to support it. Twitch
doesn't like that evidence because it devastates Branscomb's little
anecdote.
UFO "are not the business of the Air Force... 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." "with a smile" the article
said, Condon added, "but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for
another year."
>But, without physical evidence, it would take very strong
>evidence to convince Condon that the area was worth
>continued study.
>
>Guess what?
>
>The Chapter on Physical evidence stated:
>
>"This project has found no physical evidence which, in
>itself, clearly indicates the existence in the atmosphere of
>vehicles of extraordinary nature. Belief in the existence
>of such vehicles, if such belief is held, must rest on other
>arguments."
>
>No sufficently strong arguments were made.
Condon was supposed to accurately report on his staff's findings, and
most of them were in agreement that further UFO study was warranted.
Condon blatantly misrepresented the findings of his staff.
>But Levine should have been disqualified according to the
>contract since no one with strong beliefs was supposed to be
>on it!
>
>Saunders should have been disqualified also. Saunders
>definitely knew of the contract restrictions since he helped
>write the proposal which became the contract!
>
>Yet, neither of these men acted in a professional manner and
>recused themselves.
Hell, neither did Condon and Low!
>[...]
>>a hypocrite and a bigot.
>>
>Yes, you are.
No Twitch, you are. Sadly you don't realize it. You probably never will.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net posts more boring repetition:
>Let's see, Levine and Saunders had access to all of the
>files from the Condon Committee and NICAP and they could
>only come up with assinine arguments for the ETH. But then
>you declare that the recommendations were from Condon only!
Of course, because Condon wrote them.
What did you think?
>If the dissenters can come up with no better arguments than
>these after having full access to the files of the Condon
>Committee and NICAP, that shows that the recommendations of
>the Condon Committee were sound!
Twitch is saying that because Saunders' case was unconvincing, the
recommendations penned down by Condon must have been "sound".
Of course this ignores that Saunders' arguments had little to do with
the actual findings of the staff's investigations which were published in
the final project report, findings that were supposed to be accurately
represented by Condon's "summary of the study".
Condon's recommendations ought to have been premised on the staff
findings, not, as Twitch would have us believe, wether Saunders could
muster an adequate argument!
>They weren't as you well know. He held a one day meeting
>with all of his people and got their recommendations prior
>to writing the final recommendations!
>
>Craig said that:
>
> "At the end of our all-day discussion, we did not know what
>Dr. Condon would write as "recommendations." We were
>confident, however, that those recommendations would reflect
>the actual findings of the Colorado Project (Condon
>Committee)"
>
>(this was written after the report was sent out!)
This is more TwitchRepetition. Twitch can't deal with the factual evidence
that Condon misrepresented the findings of his staff so he relies on a cite
which reflects only Craig's expectation and Condon's promise.
Twitch won't discuss the only real evidence, the report itseft that contains
Condon's summary and the staff findings which then can be compared for
presence of misrepresentation by Condon.
Twitch doesn't like that evidence because it negates the Craig quote.
>OK, Jean is upset by this specific recommendation by the
>Committee:
>
>"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
>study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
>scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
>as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
>extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
>expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
But what Twitch doesn't say, is that this is not a "specific recommendation by
the Committee" but a parapgraph from "Summary of the Study" which Condon
alone authored. Armstrong, on the other hand, wrote that:
"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens and others
have all arrived at such radically different conclusions from Bob's? I think
there is fairly good consensus among the team members that there is
enough data in the UFO question to warrant further study."
Why did Gordon Thayer, who authored the Condon study's chapter on radar
cases, support further UFO research? Arguing that the "UFO question is far
from the first to fall prey to a closed-mind syndrome".
Why did Michael Wertheimer, who wrote a chapter on sensation and visual
perception of the Condon report, argree that there remains a percentage of
cases that involve "events in the sky that cannot be easily accounted for
with current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and aeronautics"?
Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
Why did Franklin Roach, a principal investigator for the Condon study, wrote
a letter to Hynek stating that "discerning"readers could see through the flaws
of the Condon report and that more than anything the report had exposed the
"fallibility of scientists" rather than clarifying the UFO issue?
>Many years have passed, Jean. There have been loads of
>people doing essentially the same job as the Condon
>Committee, NICAP, MUFON, CUFOS, CAUS, etc.
>
>What evidence have they found to invalidate this conclusion?
>
>Please be specific!
They found the exact same evidence to validate further investigation as the
people (e.g. Condon's investigative staff) above did.
Jean van gemert
In article, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com> wrote:
>Now IMO, this is one big POT calling the kettle black. . .
Your opinion only, Harry, as you seem to agree. I am perfectly
capable of admitting error; E.g., I will readily agree that Twitch
was correct about Brian having said that NASA would likely
not image the Mars face.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>a hypocrite and a bigot.
>
>Jean, if he acts at home the way he does in the newsgroups,
>probably sent his Mother a Mother's day card that said:
>
>"Fuck you! Strong letter to follow!"
More useless TwitchBlather, another indication Twitch has no
evidence. This can be seen below, where his arguments turn
out to be just repetitions of his old ones.
>Now, despite Jean's ranting, the most interesting thing that
>Sturrock wrote was:
>
>"Although both the director and the staff are cautious in
>stating questions, the staff tend to emphasize challenging
>cases and unanswered questions, whereas the director
>emphasizes the difficulty of further study and the
>probability that there is no scientific knowledge to be
>gained."
>
>Which as Sturrock should be well aware of, is the normal way
>a scientific committee works. The young tigers are anxious
>to proceed while the senior people stop and look at the
>quality of the evidence before making a recommendation.
>
>What Sturrock has written otherwise isn't terribly
>important.
Meaning in this case that the "importance" of what was "written
otherwise" is contingent upon wether one reports what Twitch
wants to hear.
Other Sturrock parts of Sturrock's paper are very important here,
but these just don't get mentioned by Twitch because they are in
conflict with his beliefs. Sturrock:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
"Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of
photographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference
to the work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's
work is misleading."
So instead of properly reporting what the staff had found, which
should have been the basis for the Project's recommendations,
Condon blatantly misrepresented their findings and imposed his
own personal views (which were already shown to be negative
just barely after the staff had begun their investigation!) instead.
As the subcommittee of the AIAA noted:
"Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than its
title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions."
And:
"There are differences in the opinions and conclusions drawn by the
authors of the various chapters, and there are differences between
these and Condon's summary. Not all conclusions contained in the
report itself are fully reflected in Condon's summary."
>We do know that Condon gave his people complete freedom to
>write whatever they wanted in their section of the report.
>The fact is that they used this fully and wrote exactly what
>they wanted in their own words. No changes were permitted
>which would alter the meaning in any fashion whatsoever
>without the agreement of the scientist who wrote the
>original words.
Which is true to the extent that Condon didn't physically change
the text of the complete chapters. Why should he?
He just blatantly misrepresented them in his summary instead!
>Which is hardly the sign of a man who is driven and has made
>up his mind. In fact, it is the sign of a man who is quite
UFOs, Condon said, "are not the business of the Air Force...
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." "with a smile" the article said, Condon added,
"but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year."
That was just barely three months after the study had commenced!
"I might as well tell you - if he had to make a conclusion now it would
be negative" said Low. "He is honestly convinced there's nothing to it."
>Jean doesn't like to hear Craig used as a source.
I don't "don't like to hear it," it simply doesn't fit with what we do know
for a fact about Condon's attitude.
Sorry if that bothers you.
>But Craig happens to be a believer.
Wholly Irrelevant.
>Craig thought that Condon had listened to the voice of the
>staff and reflected that in a proper fashion.
"Craig thought," "Craig said". Recognize the pattern here? Recall that
the entire staff intended to revolt because of Low's crappy handling of
the project, but they were one vote short. Whose? Craig's of course!
>They have used the Low memo despite their knowing that
>Condon hadn't seen that memo and it had no impact on the
>committee at all, which is intellectually dishonest.
Low wrote it. Low's actions are wholly consistent with what he had
planned for the project in the memo.
>So we have absolutely no evidence that the staff felt that
>the recommendations were unacceptable to them or that their
>input hadn't been properly taken into account.
>
>While we do have evidence, from Craig, that the staff was
>satisified that the recommendations reflected their input.
More repetitive blather. The Craig quote only supports the assumption
that the staff believed Condon would represent their findings fairly. Not
that they _were_, which is a fact Twitch ignores!
The latter we can only assess by comparing the Condon summary with
the staff's findings, and things are not to pretty for Condon there.
[Snipped other repetitive nonsense already dealt with]
>"It is our impression that the defense function could be
>performed within the framework established for intelligence
>and surveillance operations without the continuance of a
>special unit such as Project Blue Book, but this is a
>question for defense specialists rather than research
>scientists."
>
>A reasonable recommendation since Blue Book had found
>nothing of real note, Grudge had the same problem, etc.
Blue Book, understaffed and little funds.
You certainly have some quality evidence there, Twitch!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>>More Twitch doubletalk. I'm saying that Condon would always
>>>appear more favorable to his friends, more than he might be in
>>>real life. [...]
>>
What Jean, cut without indicating that he was, was the
comment about the people who have made statements about
Condon:
"Yes. They were all professional people of renown and noted
for integrity.
Jean thinks it is doubletalk to say someone was a
professional of renown and noted for integrity!
<snip>
>Yes, Twitch, we know what Condon "was thinking." Not because of the
>anecdotes of Condon's friends, but by his own actions.
>
Notice how Jean keeps avoiding the comment:
"Dr. Condon had taken so much criticism - some of it grossly
unwarranted, and some earned by premature and careless
statements about the project made at public gatherings -
that he obviously regretted ever agreeing to direct the
study."
>>Jean quotes MacDonald, Hynek, and others who have had their
>>minds made up for a long time and, apparently doesn't think
>>that they are prejudiced!
>
>More useless innuendo.
Let's see, when Jean says it it isn't innuendo, but when
twitch says the same sorts of things, it is.
>Hynek and McDonald used to be skeptics
[...]
But they had ceased being skeptical in the slightest and had
become the most fanatical of believers. When they made the
statements you are referring to they were hardly skeptical
about anything.
[...]
>>
>>Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
>>Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
>>
>>"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
>>office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
>>He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
>>for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
>>million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
>>eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
>>remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
>>remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
>>the one to discover it.'
>>
>>Which shows that Condon was a decent scientist on the
>>subject.
>
>It shows no such thing, Twitch!
>
>It only shows Brandscomb believed Condon to be a decent scientist,
>and would be too in investigating UFOs.
"But if there is a chance, even the most remote chance that
there is something there, I want to be the one to discover
it."
That is the attitude of a decent scientist, Jean! That was
what Condon said, Jean.
>>
[...]
>>But, without physical evidence, it would take very strong
>>evidence to convince Condon that the area was worth
>>continued study.
>>
>>Guess what?
>>
>>The Chapter on Physical evidence stated:
>>
>>"This project has found no physical evidence which, in
>>itself, clearly indicates the existence in the atmosphere of
>>vehicles of extraordinary nature. Belief in the existence
>>of such vehicles, if such belief is held, must rest on other
>>arguments."
>>
>>No sufficently strong arguments were made.
>
>Condon was supposed to accurately report on his staff's findings, and
>most of them were in agreement that further UFO study was warranted.
More ignorance of Jean regarding this type of scientific
project.
I was on such a project for my last work before retiring.
The scientists all said that there work was tremendously
important and the data was vital.
The senior scientist/program manager made up a list of the
few things he believed were truly absolutely required and
none of the underlings agreed with it.
I had the job of prioritizing the experiments. I got the
data that the scientists had and what they projected the
outcomes of their experiments would be.
I ran over one million non-linear simulations (It took a
cray, a mutiprocessing supercomputer, and gobs of the
biggest DECs to do this). Using the scientists own data and
projections, my list of the experiments that were absolutely
required virtually paralleled the project managers.
Anyone comparing the final recommendations to the scientists
own reports would find differences far, far greater than any
from the Condon Committee. Yet, after the results from the
simulations the scientists all agreed that the
recommendations were fair and proper.
We don't know what the scientists thought of the final
recommendations after they had had their full day meeting
but we do know that none of them complained about it or
Hynek and MacDonald and Saunders and Levine and Keyhoe would
have been telling us all how upset the scientists were about
the recommendations.
The only comments that I have seen were favorable regarding
the recommendations.
Strong evidence that the scientists were not unhappy with
them.
The only other questions is whether or not they were
accurate.
In the many years since the Condon Committee made the
recommendations, we have no decent evidence that they were
wrong!
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
That is certainly backed up by the lack of evidence found by
MUFON, NICAP, CUFOS, CAUS, etc. in the years since the
Condon Committee.
[...]
>>But Levine should have been disqualified according to the
>>contract since no one with strong beliefs was supposed to be
>>on it!
>>
>>Saunders should have been disqualified also. Saunders
>>definitely knew of the contract restrictions since he helped
>>write the proposal which became the contract!
>>
>>Yet, neither of these men acted in a professional manner and
>>recused themselves.
>
>Hell, neither did Condon and Low!
Isn't it funny that Condon and Low were not attacked until
afterwards?
NICAP in the January-Feburary 1967 issue of THE UFO
INVESTIGATOR. "It is probably fair to say that the
scientists on the project range from open-minded skeptics to
moderately convinced 'believers'..."
Condon was one of the reasons that the AF gave the job to
Colorado since he had a great reputation as a scientist and
an impartial man who would follow the evidence.
[...]
>Condon blatantly misrepresented the findings of his staff.
Where are the complaints from the staff that their work was
misrepresented?
Isn't it funny that that isn't what Sturrock said?
"Although both the director and the staff are cautious in
stating questions, the staff tend to emphasize challenging
cases and unanswered questions, whereas the director
emphasizes the difficulty of further study and the
probability that there is no scientific knowledge to be
gained."
P. A. Sturrock
JSE Volume 1 Number 1: Page 75.
Which is just the way this sort of project is supposed to be
run.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com> wrote:
>
>>Now IMO, this is one big POT calling the kettle black. . .
>
>Your opinion only, Harry[...]
No, it is backed up by your articles.
> I am perfectly
>capable of admitting error; E.g., I will readily agree that Twitch
>was correct about Brian having said that NASA would likely
>not image the Mars face.
>
And, I have posted seven apology articles for being
incorrect in what I have stated.
I have never seen one from you.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net posts more boring repetition:
>
>>Let's see, Levine and Saunders had access to all of the
>>files from the Condon Committee and NICAP and they could
>>only come up with assinine arguments for the ETH. But then
>>you declare that the recommendations were from Condon only!
>
>Of course, because Condon wrote them.
>
>What did you think?
Condon met with them for one full day to discuss what the
staffers wanted to see in the recommendations and to get
them to defend their recommendations.
Normal science.
>
>>If the dissenters can come up with no better arguments than
>>these after having full access to the files of the Condon
>>Committee and NICAP, that shows that the recommendations of
>>the Condon Committee were sound!
>
>Twitch is saying that because Saunders' case was unconvincing, the
>recommendations penned down by Condon must have been "sound".
No. Twitch is saying that Saunders couldn't find any better
evidence because it didn't exist. If it had existed, he
would have used it to discredit the Condon Committee work
like he did when he misused the Low memo.
Even after all these years, the evidence still doesn't exist
to discredit the recommendations of the Condon Committee.
Please list the evidence that this recommendation was
incorrect:
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
You can even use evidence collected after the Condon
Committee!
<snip>
>Condon's recommendations ought to have been premised on the staff
>findings<snip>
Condon's recommendations ought to have been premised on the
staff findings that the staff could properly support.
>
>>They weren't as you well know. He held a one day meeting
>>with all of his people and got their recommendations prior
>>to writing the final recommendations!
>>
>>Craig said that:
>>
>> "At the end of our all-day discussion, we did not know what
>>Dr. Condon would write as "recommendations." We were
>>confident, however, that those recommendations would reflect
>>the actual findings of the Colorado Project (Condon
>>Committee)"
>>
>>(this was written after the report was sent out!)
>
>This is more TwitchRepetition.
Yes. Jean keeps repeating himself.
>Twitch can't deal with the factual evidence
>that Condon misrepresented the findings of his staff
>so he relies on a cite
>which reflects only Craig's expectation and Condon's promise.
Which Craig wrote after the report! So Craig knew what the
meeting had covered, what the staffers could defend and what
the recommendations were when he wrote it.
He had no trouble with the recommendations.
>
[...]
>
>>OK, Jean is upset by this specific recommendation by the
>>Committee:
>>
>>"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
>>study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
>>scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
>>as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
>>extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
>>expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
>
>But what Twitch doesn't say, is that this is not a "specific recommendation by
>the Committee" but a parapgraph from "Summary of the Study" which Condon
>alone authored. Armstrong, on the other hand, wrote that:
My god, that is the general conclusion!
That is one of the conclusions that you dislike so much!
Please list the evidence that shows that this conclusion is
wrong!
>
>"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens and others
>have all arrived at such radically different conclusions from Bob's? I think
>there is fairly good consensus among the team members that there is
>enough data in the UFO question to warrant further study."
We have had many, many years of people studying UFOs. There
should be some evidence that there is enough data to warrant
further study!
What is that evidence?
[...]
>
>Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
>Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
>of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
>journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
Which the Condon Committee recommendations didn't disagree
with.
"We believe that any scientist with adequate training and
credentials who does come up with a clearly defined,
specific proposal for study (of UFOs) should be supported.
We think that all the agencies of the federal government,
and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to
consider UFO research proposals along with others submitted
to them on an open-minded basis. While we do not think at
present that anything worthwhile is likely to come of such
research, each individual case ought to be carefully
considered on its own merits."
[...]
>
>>Many years have passed, Jean. There have been loads of
>>people doing essentially the same job as the Condon
>>Committee, NICAP, MUFON, CUFOS, CAUS, etc.
>>
>>What evidence have they found to invalidate this conclusion?
>>
>>Please be specific!
>
>They found the exact same evidence to validate further investigation as the
>people (e.g. Condon's investigative staff) above did.
>
IOW you don't know of any!
Harry Bosch
..... snip .....
> More useless TwitchBlather, another indication Twitch has no
> evidence. This can be seen below, where his arguments turn
> out to be just repetitions of his old ones.
Hi guys.
This last sentence is very interesting. Why is "TwitchBlather" any
worse than JeanBlather? I see no evidence from Jean other than
opinion and assumptions on his part.
I'm certain as to what Jean is trying to say here, but there is nothing
to back his statements except his opinion and opinion of others. It
is no better than anyone else's opinion as far as I'm concerned. I
am very interested in this idea that the Condon report is somehow
flawed. But opinion and wishes that it be flawed doesn't make it so.
I would be interested to see some FACTS on this subject.
I'm sure that Jean being the wonderful researcher that he is will
have no trouble posting the evidence which shows that the general
conclusion of the Condon Committee was incorrect!
Not interested in generalities Jean, just specifics.
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in
the past twenty-one years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful
consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude
that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
What evidence or data was available to the Condon Committee or has
been consequently found to show that this is incorrect?
Again, I don't want your opinion (we have already had that) but I
would be very interested in anything of an evidential nature. Many
different conclusions can be read INTO what one THINKS about The
Condon Report, but so far nothing but generalities have been put
forward, I'm interested in specifics.
..... snip .....
> >Sturrock wrote was:
> >
> >"Although both the director and the staff are cautious in
> >stating questions, the staff tend to emphasize challenging
> >cases and unanswered questions, whereas the director
> >emphasizes the difficulty of further study and the
> >probability that there is no scientific knowledge to be
> >gained."
> >
> >Which as Sturrock should be well aware of, is the normal way
> >a scientific committee works. The young tigers are anxious
> >to proceed while the senior people stop and look at the
> >quality of the evidence before making a recommendation.
This seem right to me. . .
> >What Sturrock has written otherwise isn't terribly
> >important.
An assumption by Twitch, but about what Sturrock wrote, not about
what Jean "thinks".
> Meaning in this case that the "importance" of what was "written
> otherwise" is contingent upon wether one reports what Twitch
> wants to hear.
This is another assumption made by Jean as to what "Twitch means".
Can we stick to the facts?
> Other Sturrock parts of Sturrock's paper are very important here,
> but these just don't get mentioned by Twitch because they are in
> conflict with his beliefs. Sturrock:
More JeanBlather about what Jean THINKS Twitch BELIEVES.
Can we stick to the facts?
> "... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
> substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
> project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
> project."
Is there not disagreement in all committees? I have never been on
one yet that totally agrees on anything.
> "Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of
> photographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference
> to the work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's
> work is misleading."
It seems that Condon had the same opinion then that I hold now.
Interesting but definitely not proof of anything other than "something
is being seen and reported".
> So instead of properly reporting what the staff had found, which
> should have been the basis for the Project's recommendations,
> Condon blatantly misrepresented their findings and imposed his
> own personal views (which were already shown to be negative
> just barely after the staff had begun their investigation!) instead.
> As the subcommittee of the AIAA noted:
Sounds like more opinion here. The committee chairman summarizes
the findings of the rest of the committee, he doesn't necessarily
have to agree with them.
> "Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than its
> title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions."
More opinion?
> And:
>
> "There are differences in the opinions and conclusions drawn by the
> authors of the various chapters, and there are differences between
> these and Condon's summary. Not all conclusions contained in the
> report itself are fully reflected in Condon's summary."
Most opinions and conclusions are never "fully reflected" in summaries.
> >We do know that Condon gave his people complete freedom to
> >write whatever they wanted in their section of the report.
> >The fact is that they used this fully and wrote exactly what
> >they wanted in their own words. No changes were permitted
> >which would alter the meaning in any fashion whatsoever
> >without the agreement of the scientist who wrote the
> >original words.
>
> Which is true to the extent that Condon didn't physically change
> the text of the complete chapters. Why should he?
He shouldn't and as far as I can see he didn't other than in the
minds of certain "believers".
> He just blatantly misrepresented them in his summary instead!
"Blatantly misrepresented"? Is there any evidence of this other
than opinion?
..... snip .....
> UFOs, Condon said, "are not the business of the Air Force...
> 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." "with a smile" the article said, Condon added,
> "but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year."
>
> That was just barely three months after the study had commenced!
UFOs, Condon said, "are not the business of the Air Force...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.
It seems to me the key words here are "RIGHT NOW", leaving himself
open to change his mind if evidence were obtained. Since no evidence
was forthcoming. . .
>
> "I might as well tell you - if he had to make a conclusion now it would
> be negative" said Low. "He is honestly convinced there's nothing to it."
Here again the key word is "NOW" and the "He is honestly convinced
there's nothing to it." seems to be nothing but conjecture.
> >Jean doesn't like to hear Craig used as a source.
An assumption on Twitch's part, but probably justified from Jean's
reactions.
> I don't "don't like to hear it," it simply doesn't fit with what we do know
> for a fact about Condon's attitude.
An assumption on Jean's part, but I don't see the justification here.
What is "the fact about Condon's attitude?
> >But Craig happens to be a believer.
> Wholly Irrelevant.
Nope, this argument is used by "believers" all of the time. "He is a
skeptic, so he is prejudiced." Does this look familiar? This shoe
fits either foot.
> >Craig thought that Condon had listened to the voice of the
> >staff and reflected that in a proper fashion.
> "Craig thought," "Craig said". Recognize the pattern here?
Yep. Exactly the same pattern you use.
> Recall that the entire staff intended to revolt because of Low's crappy
> handling of the project, but they were one vote short. Whose? Craig's
> of course!
> >They have used the Low memo despite their knowing that
> >Condon hadn't seen that memo and it had no impact on the
> >committee at all, which is intellectually dishonest.
>
> Low wrote it. Low's actions are wholly consistent with what he had
> planned for the project in the memo.
>
> >So we have absolutely no evidence that the staff felt that
> >the recommendations were unacceptable to them or that their
> >input hadn't been properly taken into account.
> >
> >While we do have evidence, from Craig, that the staff was
> >satisified that the recommendations reflected their input.
> More repetitive blather. The Craig quote only supports the assumption
> that the staff believed Condon would represent their findings fairly. Not
> that they _were_, which is a fact Twitch ignores!
Oops! Here we have a "fact Twitch ignores." Do we have some specific
evidence for this fact?
> The latter we can only assess by comparing the Condon summary with
> the staff's findings, and things are not to pretty for Condon there.
It seems to me the Committee Chairman summarized the findings just fine.
Are there some specific things that are wrong? Can you point these out,
specifically without generalizing? Oh yes, some references please.
> [Snipped other repetitive nonsense already dealt with]
> >"It is our impression that the defense function could be
> >performed within the framework established for intelligence
> >and surveillance operations without the continuance of a
> >special unit such as Project Blue Book, but this is a
> >question for defense specialists rather than research
> >scientists."
> >A reasonable recommendation since Blue Book had found
> >nothing of real note, Grudge had the same problem, etc.
> Blue Book, understaffed and little funds.
You of course have some specific evidence or documentation
for this statement? Don't need the opinion of some person.
How about some documentation on the funding of "Project Blue
Book"?
> You certainly have some quality evidence there, Twitch!
Like I said before, "IMO this is one big pot calling the kettle black."
Again, I am interested in data and facts or evidence, not somebody's
personal opinion. We get so much of that here that it is becoming
a News Group Joke. Such statements made without proper
authentication or evidence to back them up are next to worthless.
Waiting patiently for specific facts or evidence.
Just my two guilders worth . . .
Harry.
--
========================================
"No one really listens to anyone else,
and if you try it for a while you'll
see why." - Goethe
========================================
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Ok, Jean, what evidence has been found since the Condon
>Committe report which invalidates this conclusion?
Well, Twitch, for starters I would say the Condon report itself!
Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
is a problem there."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek: "If one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and
concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably
find the Condon report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality
of the UFO phenomenon."
Dr. Robert Baker: "In sum, the veracity of most of the study seems to be
beyond question... the group has presented important evidence that seems
to justify scientific investigation along many general and specialized
frontiers."
Prof. Sturrock: "The substance of the Condon Report represents a persuasive
case for the view that there is some phenomenological fire hidden behind the
smoke of UFO reports, and the Report therefore supports the proposition that
further scientific study of UFOs is in order."
Dr. Bruce Murray: "On balance, Hynek's defense of UFO's as a valid, if
speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock
them out of existence."
>Please list all the evidence that shows that the Condon
>Committee was incorrect.
But Twitch _doesn't_ tell his audience that the "summary of the study" chapter
with its recommendations was authored by Condon alone, and that most of the
Committee staff (sans Condon and Low) agreed that UFOs deserved further
scientific attention, contrary to Condon's recommendations! Armstrong:
"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens and others
have all arrived at such radically different conclusions from Bob's? I think
there is fairly good consensus among the team members that there is
enough data in the UFO question to warrant further study."
Why did Condon misrepresent the positive findings of most of the Committee,
Twitch?
Why did Gordon Thayer, who authored the Condon study's chapter on radar
cases, support further UFO research? Arguing that the "UFO question is far
from the first to fall prey to a closed-mind syndrome".
Why did Michael Wertheimer, who wrote a chapter on sensation and visual
perception of the Condon report, argree that there remains a percentage of
cases that involve "events in the sky that cannot be easily accounted for
with current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and aeronautics"?
Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
Why did Franklin Roach, a principal investigator for the Condon study, wrote
a letter to Hynek stating that "discerning" readers should be able to see
through the flaws of the Condon report and that more than anything the report
had exposed the "fallibility of scientists" rather than clarifying the UFO
issue?
>>>The NAS didn't only look at the Condon Committee report but
>>>at papers from both believers and skeptics. MacDonald had
>>>three of his papers reviewed!
>>>
>>>Hardly a myopic view.
>>
>>Quite the contrary, you can't get any more "myopic".
>
>Let's see, they are tasked with the task of checking if the
>Condon Committee did its job in a proper and scientific
>manner.
>
>They not only review the work of the Committee but review
>arguments for and against UFOs in general by the main
>proponents and antagonists.
>
>They then reach the conclusion that the job was done
>properly.
Sturrock: "We have noted the discrepancies between facts and views
advanced by the Colorado Project staff and those advanced by the
Director. In comparing these with the NAS Panel Review, it is clear
that some of their information is taken from the Director's "Summary
of the Study," even where the content of this section is contradicted
by material presented in Sections CR III and CR IV of the report."
Strong evidence the NAS hardly did a decent job, Twitch.
Sturrock also wrote this interesting detail:
"I have learned from private conversation with one of the [NAS] panelists
that, in fact, all of the panelists were not as happy with the Condon Re-
port as the panel report would indicate. He told me that he had had con-
cerns and reservations about the Condon Report but did not press them
in the panel discussions because he "did not want to rock the boat.""
>That ain't myopic, Jean.
You wanna bet?
>>What Twitch
>>has done is to simply restate one of his arguments and ignore any
>>negating evidence.
>
>One person's opinion doesn't negate the work of a committee
>that reviewed the evidence and disagreed with him.
There is no "opinion," Twitch. Your insistence that there is becomes all
the more ludicrous in face of contrary facts. There is good documentary
evidence that the Panel simply parroted Condon's own summary without
checking them against the report's content. Hardly a good review.
>>Twitch has dismissed/edited out Sturrock's criticisms of the NAS
>>report on the premise that it's just "one person's judgement"
>
>Which it is.
Nonsense! Sturrock supports his comments with many quotations from
the NAS and Condon Study texts. Twitch just doesn't like the evidence
presented and therefore pretends it's only "one person's judgement".
>>but
>>ignores that Sturrock supported his arguments with quotations and
>>comparisons (i.e. evidence) of the available Condon and NAS texts,
Which Twitch couldn't respond to so he starts a different rant:
>The Chapter on Physical evidence stated:
>
>"This project has found no physical evidence which, in
>itself, clearly indicates the existence in the atmosphere of
>vehicles of extraordinary nature. Belief in the existence
>of such vehicles, if such belief is held, must rest on other
>arguments."
>
>Now, without physical evidence, what evidence would be
>sufficent to have you change your mind, Jean?
But Twitch doesn't tell that Craig's physical evidence chapter specifically
dealt with 1) physical trace cases, 2) material residue deposited from a
UFO, and 3) "articles manufactured by ET beings." That's the gist of the
chapter, and readily apparent is that other evidence like photos, radar,
etc., wasn't included here.
>Without physical evidence, contradictory eyewitness evidence
>doesn't do much to convince most scientists that this
>exists.
Here Twitch once more falsely suggests that asside from the "physical"
evidence discussed in the Craig chapter, only testimony was left, which
is untrue (see my comment above).
And despite Twitch statement that the remainder of the evidence would
not convince most scientists (a presumption on Twitch's part!), it is a
fact that the majority of the Committee members _did_ recommended
further scientific investigation on that evidence, and that the subject
was worthy of such attention.
>>which Twitch has failed to rebut.
>[...]
>
>See above.
You did not rebut a single thing re Sturrock's comparison of Condon's
summary with the staff findings. You simply danced around the issue!
>Let's see, no matter how through the investigation is,
>basing it on eyewitness reports means that a certain
>percentage will remain unexplained is highly irrelevant when
>you use the fact that there are some unexplained cases to
>argue against the Panel report?
>
>The simple fact is that none of the cases show any reason to
>keep looking.
"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens and others
have all arrived at such radically different conclusions from Bob's? I think
there is fairly good consensus among the team members that there is
enough data in the UFO question to warrant further study."
Why did Gordon Thayer, who authored the Condon study's chapter on radar
cases, support further UFO research? Arguing that the "UFO question is far
from the first to fall prey to a closed-mind syndrome".
Why did Michael Wertheimer, who wrote a chapter on sensation and visual
perception of the Condon report, argree that there remains a percentage of
cases that involve "events in the sky that cannot be easily accounted for
with current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and aeronautics"?
Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
Why did Franklin Roach, a principal investigator for the Condon study, wrote
a letter to Hynek stating that "discerning" readers should be able to see
through the flaws of the Condon report and that more than anything the report
had exposed the "fallibility of scientists" rather than clarifying the UFO
issue?
And:
Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
is a problem there."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek: "If one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and
concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably
find the Condon report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality
of the UFO phenomenon."
Dr. Robert Baker: "In sum, the veracity of most of the study seems to be
beyond question... the group has presented important evidence that seems
to justify scientific investigation along many general and specialized
frontiers."
Prof. Sturrock: "The substance of the Condon Report represents a persuasive
case for the view that there is some phenomenological fire hidden behind the
smoke of UFO reports, and the Report therefore supports the proposition that
further scientific study of UFOs is in order."
Dr. Bruce Murray: "On balance, Hynek's defense of UFO's as a valid, if
speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock
them out of existence."
[...]
>There has yet to come to light any evidence that they were
>wrong after all these years of UFOlogists looking at
>additional data.
There is no "they were wrong," there is only Condon with his summary who
misrepresented his staff's findings.
>>Here Twitch snipped my clarification that the comment was made by
>>Philip M. Boffey on the "news and comment" pages of the magazine,
>>along with news about "federal rat control grants", news about an
>>"animal research center," etc.
>
>If a magazine publishes something on the news and comment
>page and then doesn't publish any articles against that
>news, the assumption is that the magazine agrees with the
>comment.
Nonsense! The most "reasonable" assumption one could make is that the
editor agreed with Boffey, or didn't care. In your other messages however,
you presented the quote as being representative of the AAAS, but there is
no evidence whatsoever that Boffey's news article was approved as being
an official AAAS appraisal. The comment is Boffey's only, clearly.
>In American Law, silence is assent.
How about posting a reference to that "law"?
And I suppose that also means Science must have agreed with Dr. Murray
who castigated Science for not publishing a rebuttal to the Condon study.
Right? Your own "logic" is killing your argument.
>>A new macro, Twitch? I have provided evidence that the Panel
>>was not objective in its assessments. <snip>
>
>No. You have provided one person's opinion. Nothing more.
He noted several mistakes in the Panel's assessment, in case
you weren't paying attention.
><snip>
>>>Just like Jean a while ago quoted part of the resignation
>>>letter from one of the conspirators but left out the part
>>>that said:
>>
>>"Conspirators"? Great McCarthy reflex you have, Twitch.
>
>What do you call in Holland a group that meets secretly to
>attempt to plan how best to discredit a committee that two
>of the people are working on?
>
>In the US, they are conspirators.
>
>I notice you keep cutting the quote showing that even Donald
>Keyhoe admitted he'd have fired them for their actions.
You certainly "notice" a lot, Twitch.
Too bad much of what you "notice" is flat out wrong.
I have discussed the Keyhoe quote in detail, I even asked you
to post a more complete version so I could assess context.
"I notice" you haven't done that yet.
>They leaked a document to opponents, the quoted that
>document out of context and pretended that Condon had seen
>the memo and had agreed with it.
And I in turn quoted the memo, showing there is *nothing* to quote
"out of context." Here's some of that memo again:
"In order to undertake such a project, one has to approach it objectively.
That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things (UFOs) exist.
It is _not respectable_ to give _serious consideration_ to such a possi-
bility. Believers, in other words, remain outcasts... admitting such
possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would _lose_ more in
prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain by
undertaking the investigation."
"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."
"I'm inclined to feel at this early stage that, if we set up the thing right
and take pains to get proper people involved and have success in
presenting the image we want to present to the scientific community,
we could carry the job off to our benefit."
>> IMO,
>>Twitch's ass kissing of authority is highly amusing. Twitch
>>would kiss ass no matter the amount of warts. :)
>
>Oh, goody. Now we get to see the Jean van Gemet of a few
>months ago.
Please attempt to at least get my name right in the future.
Did I also mention you are totally devoid of any humor?
>>"We felt that Bob [Low] did represent you, that he did talk to you
>>often, and that therefore you were well-informed on what he was
>>doing and what your position was."
>
>You realize that you have just demonstrated, like I hoped
>you would, that the memo from Low wasn't official committee
>policy and that Craig, who found the memo, was right and
>that Condon neither saw the memo nor acted on it at all!
I have already stated that it is quite possible that Condon did not see
the memo. What is apparent is that Condon shared the same disdain
and prejudice for the subject as Low did. And Low's actions are wholly
consistent with what he had in mind for the project and which is
detailed in the memo.
>>But Condon didn't change any of their words, he just misrepresented
>>them in his own summary!
>
>I'm sorry but, unlike you, I have read a lot of the report
>and the words are not misrepresented in the summary.
Nonsense! I have a copy of the report sitting on my bookshelves, and
Sturrock's assessment is right on target:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
Sturrock continues (on photographic cases):
"In his summary of this category, Hartmann (Condon & Gillmor, 1968,
p. 86) describes a "residual group of unidentifieds" which "is not
inconsistent with the hypothesis that unknown and extraordinary air-
craft have penetrated the airspace of the United States," although
"none yields sufficient evidence to establish this hypothesis."
"It is interesting to compare Hartmann's report and case studies
with Condon's two-page summary of "Study of UFO Photographs"
(Condon & Gillmor 1968, pp. 35-37). Only one paragraph is clearly
based on Hartmann's work. This reads:
Hartmann made a detailed study of 35 photographic cases (Section
IV, Chapter 3) referring to the period 1966-1968, and a selection
of eighteen older cases, some of which have been widely acclaimed
in the UFO literature. This photographic study led to the identi-
fication of a number of widely publicized photographs as being
ordinary objects, others as fabrications, and others as innocent
misidentifications of things photographed under unusual conditions."
"In fact, Hartmann discusses 14 cases, of which six are from the
period 1966-1968. Concerning the McMinnville, Oregon, case (Case
46), Condon refers not to the analysis made by Hartmann, but to
an analysis made by Everitt Merritt, who was not a member of the
project staff, but a photogrammatrist on the staff of the Autome-
trics Division of the Raytheon Company of Alexandria, Virginia.
Merritt found that "the UFO images turned out to be too fuzzy to
allow worthwhile further parametric analysis." Condon reports at
length Merritt's analysis of another case (Zanesville Ohio; not
discussed anywhere else in the report) that was considered to be
a hoax, and also discusses two photographs published in Look ma-
gazine, quoting the analysis of Staff Sergeant Earl Schroeder of
the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Schroeder is not listed as
being affiliated with the Colorado UFO Project, and the case he
analyzed was not considered by the project staff."
"Apart from generalizations, Condon devotes only one and one-half
page to discussion of photographic evidence. Of this one and one-
half pages, 60% is devoted to the work of Meritt, 30% to the work
of Schroeder, and only 10% to the work of Hartmann. Further, as
we have seen, Condon's summary of the work of his own staffmember
(Hartmann) was quite inadequate and -- for whatever reasons --
misleading."
On Condon's summary of radar cases Sturrock writes:
"Thayer, in his summary of radar-visual cases [for Condon], states:
'There is a small, but significant, residue of cases from the radar-
visual files that have no plausible explanation such propagation
phenomena and/or misinterpreted man-made objects.'"
"Condon, in his "Summary of the Study," devotes almost three pages
to discussion of radar sightings of UFOs, but his comments on the
case studies of the Colorado Project are confined to two short
paragraphs comprising only 10% of Condon's discussion of radar
sightings. As an evaluation of these case studies, he quotes from
Thayer's summary: "... there was no case where the meteorological
data available tended to negate the anomalous propagation hypothe-
sis...." This is, at best, an unfortunate quotation, implying that
Thayer regards the anomalous propagation hypothesis as offering a
plausible explanation of every case. A more complete quotation of
Thayer's remark (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 172) is as follows:
"The reader should note that the assignment of cases into the
probable AP cause category could have been made on the basis of
the observational testimony alone. That is to say, that there was
no case where the meteorological data available tended to negate
the anomalous propagation hypothesis, thereby causing that case
to be assigned to some other category."
"In the table (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 173) to which Thayer is
referring, we see that for only 19 of the 35 cases does Thayer
regard anomalous propagation to be the "most likely or most
plausible explanation." Thayer's assessment is perhaps presented
more clearly by a later quotation (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 174):
"... where the observational data pointed to anomalous propagation
as the probable cause of an UFO incident, the meteorological data
are overwhelmingly in favour of the plausibility of the AP hypo-
thesis."
Thaver has clearly concluded that a substantial fraction of radar
observations are probably due to anomalous propagation effects; but
it is equally clear that he does not ascribe _all_ radar observa-
tions to this phenomenon. The impression given by Condon's summary
concerning radar-visual cases is, therefore, at variance with
Thayer's summary and with the cases on which Thayer's summary is
based."
Sturrock summarizes:
"Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of
photographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference
to the work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's
work is misleading."
>What evidence have all of these UFOlogists come up with in
>all these years since the Condon Committee which shows that
>the recommendations were wrong?
>
>NONE!
This is blatant misrepresentation, Twitch is *still* pretending that
Condon's recommendations accurately reflect the staff findings,
which they did not.
>[...] to save bandwidth.
>
>None of Jean's other words looked like they were any better.
Do blather on, Twitch.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> I am perfectly
>>capable of admitting error; E.g., I will readily agree that Twitch
>>was correct about Brian having said that NASA would likely
>>not image the Mars face.
>>
>And, I have posted seven apology articles for being
>incorrect in what I have stated.
>
>I have never seen one from you.
Then you're blind because there's one in front of your eyes;
"I will readily agree that Twitch was correct about Brian
having" etc.
Jean van gemert
In article, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com> wrote:
>I'm certain as to what Jean is trying to say here, but there is nothing
>to back his statements except his opinion and opinion of others. It
>is no better than anyone else's opinion as far as I'm concerned. I
Err... Harry. What part of "Sturrock supported his arguments with
direct quotations and comparisons of the Condon Summary and
staff texts" didn't you understand?
>I'm sure that Jean being the wonderful researcher that he is will
>have no trouble posting the evidence which shows that the general
>conclusion of the Condon Committee was incorrect!
1) The conclusion can be read in Condon's chapter. Condon authored
that part alone.
2) There are vast differences in that chapter between what Condon wrote
the staff found, and what they did find.
3) Most of the staff has expressed that further investigation of UFOs was
warranted, this is incompatible with the recommendation Condon makes
in his chapter yet which is supposed to have accurately reflect the staff
findings.
I don't need to defend point one, go check the Bantam edition of the
Condon study. Point two is supported by Sturrock's quotations and
comparisons of actual staff and summary texts. Point 3 is supported
by quotations from actual staff members and investigators.
>"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in
>the past twenty-one years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful
>consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude
>that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
>expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
>
>What evidence or data was available to the Condon Committee or has
>been consequently found to show that this is incorrect?
Condon's recommendation was faulty from the start because, as I
explained, it didn't reflect his staff's point of view. This was obvious
to most who read through the entire report texts. From some of
the reviews that were published:
Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
is a problem there."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek: "If one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and
concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably
find the Condon report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality
of the UFO phenomenon."
Dr. Robert Baker: "In sum, the veracity of most of the study seems to be
beyond question... the group has presented important evidence that seems
to justify scientific investigation along many general and specialized
frontiers."
Prof. Sturrock: "The substance of the Condon Report represents a persuasive
case for the view that there is some phenomenological fire hidden behind the
smoke of UFO reports, and the Report therefore supports the proposition that
further scientific study of UFOs is in order."
Dr. Bruce Murray: "On balance, Hynek's defense of UFO's as a valid, if
speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock
them out of existence."
>Again, I don't want your opinion (we have already had that) but I
>would be very interested in anything of an evidential nature. Many
>different conclusions can be read INTO what one THINKS about The
>Condon Report, but so far nothing but generalities have been put
>forward, I'm interested in specifics.
Again, from Sturrock citing specifics:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
Sturrock continues (on photographic cases):
Dr. Sturrock then summarizes by saying that:
"Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of
photographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference
to the work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's
work is misleading."
Sturrock provides more examples in his paper.
Also see:
www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/aiaa11.htm
>> >Which as Sturrock should be well aware of, is the normal way
>> >a scientific committee works. The young tigers are anxious
>> >to proceed while the senior people stop and look at the
>> >quality of the evidence before making a recommendation.
>
>This seem right to me. . .
Which is nonsense because *the staff* did all the evaluating, and Condon
didn't object to any of the evaluatiojns.The staff's assessments should have
been properly represented by Condon, as should have been the staff's
argument that UFOs should be studied furter.
Instead of doing so, Condon presented his own conclusion as that of the
entire committee, and misrepresented his staff's findings.
>> Other Sturrock parts of Sturrock's paper are very important here,
>> but these just don't get mentioned by Twitch because they are in
>> conflict with his beliefs. Sturrock:
>
>More JeanBlather about what Jean THINKS Twitch BELIEVES.
>Can we stick to the facts?
Nope, Harry. I cited evidence by Sturrock to support my "JeanBlather".
>> "... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
>> substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
>> project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
>> project."
>
>Is there not disagreement in all committees? I have never been on
>one yet that totally agrees on anything.
Yeah, but in this case the project director (Condon) and manager
(Low) were the only ones who were very hostile, believing UFOs
were just a "bunch of nonsense". None of them participated in any
investigations for the project.
The investigative staff on the other hand were vastly positive that
UFOs warranted scientific attention. At least 11 persons on the
committee shared this opinion (of the 16), three of these had no
outspoken point of view, and two (Low and Condon) were, as I
said, vastly negative (from the beginning).
For details you might want to check Michael Swords' article in
JUFOS #95/96 for more facts.
>> "Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of
>> photographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference
>> to the work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's
>> work is misleading."
>
>It seems that Condon had the same opinion then that I hold now.
>Interesting but definitely not proof of anything other than "something
>is being seen and reported".
The first order question is always "are there novel phenomena being
reported"? The staff agreed that there were strong indications this
was true, regardless of the cause.
>> So instead of properly reporting what the staff had found, which
>> should have been the basis for the Project's recommendations,
>> Condon blatantly misrepresented their findings and imposed his
>> own personal views (which were already shown to be negative
>> just barely after the staff had begun their investigation!) instead.
>> As the subcommittee of the AIAA noted:
>
>Sounds like more opinion here. The committee chairman summarizes
>the findings of the rest of the committee, he doesn't necessarily
>have to agree with them.
Yes, but he should have stated that separately then, and not blatantly
misrepresent their findings instead and presenting his own conclusions
as those of his staff.
>> "Condon's chapter, "Summary of the Study," contains more than its
>> title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions."
>
>More opinion?
No, go read Condon's chapter.
>> Which is true to the extent that Condon didn't physically change
>> the text of the complete chapters. Why should he?
>
>He shouldn't and as far as I can see he didn't other than in the
>minds of certain "believers".
Are you saying I am claiming he did? I'm just saying he misrepresented
them which is easily checked.
>> He just blatantly misrepresented them in his summary instead!
>
>"Blatantly misrepresented"? Is there any evidence of this other
>than opinion?
I cited pieces of Sturrock's analyses who quotes from the texts,
that's not "opinion".
>UFOs, Condon said, "are not the business of the Air Force...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.
>
>It seems to me the key words here are "RIGHT NOW", leaving himself
>open to change his mind if evidence were obtained. Since no evidence
>was forthcoming. . .
[...]
>> "I might as well tell you - if he had to make a conclusion now it would
>> be negative" said Low. "He is honestly convinced there's nothing to it."
>
>Here again the key word is "NOW" and the "He is honestly convinced
>there's nothing to it." seems to be nothing but conjecture.
>
>> >Jean doesn't like to hear Craig used as a source.
>
>An assumption on Twitch's part, but probably justified from Jean's
>reactions.
>
>> I don't "don't like to hear it," it simply doesn't fit with what we do know
>> for a fact about Condon's attitude.
>
>An assumption on Jean's part, but I don't see the justification here.
>What is "the fact about Condon's attitude?
That he was biased, that he made fun of people claiming to have been
taken aboard UFOs, that he took an interst in crackpot cases rather
than concentrating on those given to him by NICAP, etc. Remember
that Twitch has argued that Levine and Saunders shouldn't have been
on the project for their a priori attitude that there was something to
UFOs. In contrast, Condon and Low thought there was nothing to
UFOs, which hardly fits the definition "skeptic".
>> >But Craig happens to be a believer.
>
>> Wholly Irrelevant.
>
>Nope, this argument is used by "believers" all of the time. "He is a
>skeptic, so he is prejudiced." Does this look familiar? This shoe
>fits either foot.
Let me restate, I do NOT consider Craig a "believer". Craig has stated
that at least one case he investigated had no conventional explanation,
but some of his other explanations were just preposterous.
>> More repetitive blather. The Craig quote only supports the assumption
>> that the staff believed Condon would represent their findings fairly. Not
>> that they _were_, which is a fact Twitch ignores!
>
>Oops! Here we have a "fact Twitch ignores." Do we have some specific
>evidence for this fact?
Excerpts from Sturrock's which I must have posted lots of times now.
>> The latter we can only assess by comparing the Condon summary with
>> the staff's findings, and things are not to pretty for Condon there.
>
>It seems to me the Committee Chairman summarized the findings just fine.
>Are there some specific things that are wrong? Can you point these out,
>specifically without generalizing? Oh yes, some references please.
Sturrock points out several discrepancies between the staff's findings and
Condon's summary of same.
>> Blue Book, understaffed and little funds.
>
>You of course have some specific evidence or documentation
>for this statement? Don't need the opinion of some person.
>How about some documentation on the funding of "Project Blue
>Book"?
Hynek has lots of details on that in his "the UFO experience."
Bill Keesing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Robert Sutherland wrote in message
<6iilpo$d...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>...
>Why apologize? I don't see the point. I've nothing against Sagan
and
>never wrote any nasty letters to him; but why, when the photos the
>Surveyor has taken confirm the artificial creation of the face?
*Looks up the star maps to try to work out which galaxy the above
message was sent from because it sure as hell wasn't sent from this
one.*
- -----
Bill Keesing
Usual Disclaimers blah personal opinions blah blah
http://users.iconz.co.nz/keesing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.5.5
iQB1AwUBNVhBhtfJ+bq7UkKNAQHqMAL8DEafY1TcPGZ64uyg4GNnCwlhpzhN3O2s
BqJf3lK8VgE9hFvEN3atK4RYeiZBfoS4GbJjsVkZUIaNR4wnjIWCq9AjArwkYVeH
63iGmcraVhHNCn0sfxq2EcB+FsjLW9uH
=aqiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jean van gemert
Here's another interesting detail that Condon was grossly prejudiced re
the UFO problem, in this case a letter to the editor of International UFO
Reporter of the Center for UFO Studies which was written by Dr. Thorton
Page. Note that Page is hardly pro-UFO. Page wrote:
"I have just read Richard Sigismond's 'Confrontation with Dr. Condon' in
the Sept.-Oct. issue of the International UFO Reporter. I would like to
submit the following addendum: two more confrontations. Like Condon,
I started with the conviction that UFOs were 'nonsense' when I served
on the CIA Robertson Committee in 1953. But after that I came to see
that a small fraction of UFO reports were very difficult to explain. At
Wesleyan University in Connecticut, I offered a course on UFOs which
attracted many undergraduates, and taught them some astronomy.
Then, in 1968, Carl Sagan and I organized the AAAS Symposium on
UFOs to be held in Boston December, 1969. Condon did everything
he could to prevent this meeting... Somewhat later, I was asked to
write the article on UFOs for the Encyclopedia Britannica. After
preparing a draft, I phoned Condon to check whether I had fully
covered the data collected by his committee. This was the final
confrontation. He shouted at me that he should write the article;
then there was a bang, and silence. I am told he threw the phone
on the floor with such violence that it broke!"
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
[...]
>
>You certainly have some quality evidence there, Twitch!
>
Talking about quality evidence, Jean, why haven't you been
able to post any quality evidence that the general
conclusion of the Condon Committee was incorrect?
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
That is the key, Jean.
Saunders and Levine weren't able to post any evidence that
this is incorrect and they had access to all of the Condon
Committee records and the NICAP records.
Roughly 30 years later you still can't post any evidence
that that is incorrect.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
[...]
>>And, I have posted seven apology articles for being
>>incorrect in what I have stated.
>>
>>I have never seen one from you.
>
> Then you're blind because there's one in front of your eyes;
> "I will readily agree that Twitch was correct about Brian
> having" etc.
>
<snip>
That was an apology?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>Here's another interesting detail [...]
An interesting detail is why can't Jean post some actual
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm certain as to what Jean is trying to say here, but there is nothing
>>to back his statements except his opinion and opinion of others. It
>>is no better than anyone else's opinion as far as I'm concerned. I
>
>Err... Harry. What part of "Sturrock supported his arguments with
>direct quotations and comparisons of the Condon Summary and
>staff texts" didn't you understand?
>
Err... Jean, what part of "you have provided no quality
evidence that the Condon Committee general conclusion was
wrong" don't you understand?
Jean, why haven't you been able to post any quality evidence
that the general conclusion of the Condon Committee was
incorrect?
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
That is the key, Jean.
Saunders and Levine weren't able to post any evidence that
this is incorrect and they had access to all of the Condon
Committee records and the NICAP records.
Roughly 30 years later you still can't post any evidence
that that is incorrect.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>Ok, Jean, what evidence has been found since the Condon
>>Committe report which invalidates this conclusion?
>
>Well, Twitch, for starters I would say the Condon report itself!
>
>Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
>and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
>is a problem there."
Sorry, Opinion doesn't count as evidence, Jean.
If the conclusion was wrong, there should be real evidence
of it in the report.
There isn't any.
Saunders and Levine couldn't provide any despite their
having access to the complete records of the Condon
Committee.
30 years later, you still can't provide any quality evidence
that the conclusion is incorrect.
[...]
>
>>Please list all the evidence that shows that the Condon
>>Committee was incorrect.
>
>But Twitch _doesn't_ tell his audience that the "summary of the study" chapter
>with its recommendations was authored by Condon alone[...]
But Jean is trying to avoid the lack of evidence that the
general conclusion is wrong.
>
>"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens[...]
havn't been able to provide any quality evidence that the
general conclusion was wrong?
>
>Why did Condon misrepresent the positive findings of most of the Committee,
>Twitch?
>
[...]
He didn't.
He exercised his position since they couldn't back up their
feelings with data.
There was no physical evidence of quality found and none of
the other evidence is strong enough. Unexplained isn't the
same as ETH.
My last project was told to finish quickly. The Sandia
Program manager/senior scientist wrote on a piece of paper
the very few experiments which were required to get the data
to reach our goal.
All the lower level scientists ranted and raved about how
vital their work was.
I used their data and their projections of what the
continuation of their experiments would yield along with the
computer models that the lower level scientists had
developed.
It turned out that 41(IIRC) lower level PIs were incorrect,
and the senior scientist, in just a few seconds, had
correctly figured out what experiments were required.
Harry Bosch has the final report on this work.
Did the senior scientist misrepresent the positive findings
of his lower level scientists?
He used the experience and knowledge that were the reasons
for his being chosen as project manager/senior scientist.
The exact same way Condon did!
If Condon was wrong, you should be able to post the evidence
showing that he was wrong. Not opinions but facts that the
general conclusion is incorrect!
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
You have 30 years more study that Condon had. Where is your
evidence that he was wrong?
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>Here's another interesting detail [...]
>
>An interesting detail is why can't Jean post some actual
>was incorrect?
Darn, Twitch snipped the good stuff, like he always does. Guess
I will have to post it again!
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>And, I have posted seven apology articles for being
>>>incorrect in what I have stated.
>>>
>>>I have never seen one from you.
>>
>> Then you're blind because there's one in front of your eyes;
>> "I will readily agree that Twitch was correct about Brian
>> having" etc.
>>
><snip>
>
>That was an apology?
An admission of error, "for being incorrect in what I have stated".
>Jean, why haven't you been able to post any quality evidence
>that the general conclusion of the Condon Committee was
>incorrect?
Twitch, is your macro key stuck or something? You seem post the
same fallacious blather over and over again.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
>>and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
>>is a problem there."
>
>Sorry, Opinion doesn't count as evidence, Jean.
Nonsense! Poher's evidence is that the staff texts differ vastly from Condon's
summary. See the Sturrock quote below.
>If the conclusion was wrong, there should be real evidence
>of it in the report.
>
>There isn't any.
Bullshit, Twitch.
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
>Saunders and Levine couldn't provide any despite their
>having access to the complete records of the Condon
>Committee.
>
>30 years later, you still can't provide any quality evidence
>that the conclusion is incorrect.
The evidence is right there, in the pages of the report itself. Twitch
can't deal with that fact so he starts an unrelated rant about David
saunders' book. "Saunders couldn't provide any" simply means
that Saunder disagreed with a number of cases the committee
considered solved. Twitch likes to focus on that but doesn't tell
that there were enough cases however were the entire committee
*did* agree there was no readily explanation.
>>But Twitch _doesn't_ tell his audience that the "summary of the study" chapter
>
>>with its recommendations was authored by Condon alone[...]
>
>But Jean is trying to avoid the lack of evidence that the
>general conclusion is wrong.
Nonsense, Twitch. Sturrock summarized it nicely when he wrote:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
>>"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens[...]
>
>havn't been able to provide any quality evidence that the
>general conclusion was wrong?
More nonsense. Those people actually *wrote* the main body of the report,
did the investigating and prepared the conclusions which Condon _should_
have accurately represented in the summary, but didn't.
>>Why did Condon misrepresent the positive findings of most of the Committee,
>>Twitch?
>>
>[...]
>
>He didn't.
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
>He exercised his position since they couldn't back up their
>feelings with data.
Ah, so *now* you're saying he recommended differently because Condon could
not agree with the staff's findings/evidence?
Would you cite the passage from the report that has Condon saying this? That
he "ecercised his position since [the staff] couldn't back up their feelings
with data".
Where exactly does he say this? Page number and quote please.
In fact, Condon's summary suggests very differently, he doesn't spend one
sentence suggesting the Committee was wrong on anything, and vigorously
quoted from the staff's chapters instead. But when he does, it never is an
accurate representation of the staff's real findings.
What's more, this is a blatant *admission* by Twitch that the staff's position
WAS different from Condon's on the UFO issue. Yet even in this very same
post, Twitch is dense enough to keep insisting that Condon did accurately
represent his staff's findings!
>There was no physical evidence of quality found and none of
>the other evidence is strong enough. Unexplained isn't the
>same as ETH.
The Committee was not supposed to prove or disprove the ETH, they were
supposed to see if UFO investigations should be continued, Twitch.
[...]
>He used the experience and knowledge that were the reasons
>for his being chosen as project manager/senior scientist.
>
>The exact same way Condon did!
Nonsense, Twitch. When it came to UFOs, very few people on the Project
had "experience and knowledge", and certainly not Condon.
>If Condon was wrong, you should be able to post the evidence
>showing that he was wrong. Not opinions but facts that the
>general conclusion is incorrect!
Which I've posted several times, but you just refuse to acknowledge.
And that's why I am not posting specifically to sway you, Twitch.
I am posting because your posts have the potential to make people
believe things that are not necessarily true, which should be corrected.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>You certainly have some quality evidence there, Twitch!
Twitch reduced my +130 line post to a single sentence.
Telling behavior!
>Talking about quality evidence, Jean, why haven't you been
>able to post any quality evidence that the general
>conclusion of the Condon Committee was incorrect?
Twitch, your macro key is stuck and you are misrepresenting
the Committee's structure/findings.
The recommendations were written by someone who had not
investigated a single case and apparently wasn't even able to
report the findings of his staff properly, to the point of stating
outright falsehoods!
That may be "good" evidence to you, it's certainly not "good"
enough for me.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Jean thinks it is doubletalk to say someone was a
>professional of renown and noted for integrity!
Nonsense! The dicussion was about the probability of Condon's
close friends being more prone to filter out any of Condon's bad
attitudes when openly stating their opinion of him.
People just tend to do that.
Which is why I have suggested to *only* assess Condon's direct
and visible actions rather than to just rely on what appears to be
merely glorification of Condon's person by his friends.
The evidence then turns out very negative; Condon had expressed
disdain for the subject a number of times, and instead of at least
taking a look at NICAP's data, he emphasized and talked about
the crackpot element of the UFO phenomenon only.
Then there's Condon's treatment of Robert M. Wood who, in good
spirit, suggested in a letter to Condon some ways to improve the
project's shortcommings only to find out that Condon had tried to
get him fired for this!
Then there's Thorton Page's and Carl Sagan's clash with Condon,
and how Condon had tried to prevent the AAAS symposium on
UFOs from taking place because it would have given the "UFO
charlatans" (e.g. Hynek, McDonald) undeserved credibility.
The list goes on and on.
>>Yes, Twitch, we know what Condon "was thinking." Not because of the
>>anecdotes of Condon's friends, but by his own actions.
>>
>Notice how Jean keeps avoiding the comment:
Absolute hogwash! I commented on it several times!
>"Dr. Condon had taken so much criticism - some of it grossly
>unwarranted, and some earned by premature and careless
>statements about the project made at public gatherings -
>that he obviously regretted ever agreeing to direct the
>study."
In a letter to Carl Sagan, Condon wrote:
"I did not want to do the UFO study," but was talked into it in August
1966 by staff of the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, largely
on the basis of appeals to duty to do a needed public service."
He never wanted it Twitch, so the stuff about regretting to take the
project because of the criticisms he had to endure is just whining
on his part.
And much of the criticism leveled against Condon was justified.
>>>Jean quotes MacDonald, Hynek, and others who have had their
>>>minds made up for a long time and, apparently doesn't think
>>>that they are prejudiced!
>>
>>More useless innuendo.
>
>Let's see, when Jean says it it isn't innuendo, but when
>twitch says the same sorts of things, it is.
That's because I tend to support my statements with evidence.
>>Hynek and McDonald used to be skeptics
>[...]
>
>But they had ceased being skeptical in the slightest and had
>become the most fanatical of believers. When they made the
>statements you are referring to they were hardly skeptical
>about anything.
Nonsense! They were very skeptical, and in particular of people like
Condon and Klass. E.g., even Roy Craig would admit about James
McDonald that he:
"was amazingly energetic, organized, and convincing in the logic of
his presentations".
Hynek and McDonald became "fanatical believers" in your mind only
because they simply didn't share your point of view.
>>It only shows Brandscomb believed Condon to be a decent scientist,
>>and would be too in investigating UFOs.
>
>"But if there is a chance, even the most remote chance that
>there is something there, I want to be the one to discover
>it."
>
>That is the attitude of a decent scientist, Jean! That was
>what Condon said, Jean.
I don't know if Condon said that, that's what Brandscomb recalls he
said (he "vividly remembers"). Considering Condon's comments that
he never wanted the project in the first place, and considering his
fascination with only crackpot cases and public confessions that he
believed UFOs and the Project were just "damned nonsense", there
is little of Brandscomb's anecdote that correlates with these facts.
>>Condon was supposed to accurately report on his staff's findings, and
>>most of them were in agreement that further UFO study was warranted.
>
>More ignorance of Jean regarding this type of scientific
>project.
Hardly. You just don't seem capable of setting up a proper analogy.
>The senior scientist/program manager made up a list of the
>few things he believed were truly absolutely required and
>none of the underlings agreed with it.
[...]
>Anyone comparing the final recommendations to the scientists
>own reports would find differences far, far greater than any
>from the Condon Committee. Yet, after the results from the
>simulations the scientists all agreed that the
>recommendations were fair and proper.
This is a worthless analogy. To briefly summarize Twitch's point, he
is saying that the final recommendations were different from the
scientists' initial reports, but the scientists had to agree with it in
the end.
There is at least one great difference here.
Twitch's example remarks on the fact that there was a compelling set
of evidence ("the simulations") to support the final recommendations,
and supposedly sway the scientists to the point of agreement.
In the Condon report case however, the only "simulations" were done
by the staff (the case discussions), but Condon had done none, and
so he never had any evidence to just overrule the findings of his staff!
There is also NO evidence to support Twitch's notion that Condon had
penned down negative recommendations because he disagreed with
his staff as to the sort and quality of the evidence. Condon certainly
never expressed such in the texts he wrote for the report! What he
did instead was to quote the staff findings heavily out of context and
present these as definite evidence that there was nothing to all the
UFO reports the staff had investigated.
So instead of saying the staff was wrong because of [...] and [...] and
therefore he would not follow up on his staff's recommendations, thus
recommend differently (something which he knew he could not do as
he never took part in any investigation!), he misrepresented their real
findings to make it _appear_ the staff found no evidence of novel
phenomena.
>We don't know what the scientists thought of the final
>recommendations after they had had their full day meeting
If we're to believe Craig, all they "knew" for certain was that Condon's
recommendations were to be premised on the staff's findings, that he
would represent them fairly and accurately as the project's findings.
But Condon just didn't do that.
>but we do know that none of them complained about it or
>Hynek and MacDonald and Saunders and Levine and Keyhoe
>would have been telling us all how upset the scientists were
>about the recommendations.
Nonsense. We know what most of the the staff members clearly thought
about the UFO problem during the study, and *after* the report had been
published. None of it is very consistent with Condon's recommendations.
>The only comments that I have seen were favorable regarding
>the recommendations.
>
>Strong evidence that the scientists were not unhappy with
>them.
Utter nonsense. If they were happy with Condon's recommendations why
do you think many of them felt it necessary to openly state they were in
favor for continued research, which *contradicts* the recommendations?
"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens and others
have all arrived at such radically different conclusions from Bob's? I think
there is fairly good consensus among the team members that there is
enough data in the UFO question to warrant further study."
Why did Gordon Thayer, who authored the Condon study's chapter on radar
cases, support further UFO research? Arguing that the "UFO question is far
from the first to fall prey to a closed-mind syndrome".
Why did Michael Wertheimer, who wrote a chapter on sensation and visual
perception of the Condon report, argree that there remains a percentage of
cases that involve "events in the sky that cannot be easily accounted for
with current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and aeronautics"?
Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
Why did Franklin Roach, a principal investigator for the Condon study, wrote
a letter to Hynek stating that "discerning" readers should be able to see
through the flaws of the Condon report and that more than anything the report
had exposed the "fallibility of scientists" rather than clarifying the UFO
issue?
>In the many years since the Condon Committee made the
>recommendations, we have no decent evidence that they were
>wrong!
Here's more false TwitchPretending, that it was the entire committee which
wrote the recommendations. This despite Condon is the sole author! Most
of the committee members found that the gathered evidence was sufficient
to warrant further scientific attention, that is, The Condon report *itself*
is evidence that Condon's recommendations were not sound! As others
have noted, including professional societies like the AIAA:
Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
is a problem there."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek: "If one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and
concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably
find the Condon report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality
of the UFO phenomenon."
Dr. Robert Baker: "In sum, the veracity of most of the study seems to be
beyond question... the group has presented important evidence that seems
to justify scientific investigation along many general and specialized
frontiers."
Prof. Sturrock: "The substance of the Condon Report represents a persuasive
case for the view that there is some phenomenological fire hidden behind the
smoke of UFO reports, and the Report therefore supports the proposition that
further scientific study of UFOs is in order."
Dr. Bruce Murray: "On balance, Hynek's defense of UFO's as a valid, if
speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock
them out of existence."
>Isn't it funny that Condon and Low were not attacked until
>afterwards?
>
>NICAP in the January-Feburary 1967 issue of THE UFO
>INVESTIGATOR. "It is probably fair to say that the
>scientists on the project range from open-minded skeptics to
>moderately convinced 'believers'..."
"Isn't it funny" that Twich made the exact same statement a couple of posts
ago, yet never rebutted my critique? The NICAP quote was published when
the project was only three months old. NICAP and others were not yet fully
aware of Low and Condon's negative stance, laboring under the impression
Condon and Low would honestly deal with the evidence.
>Condon was one of the reasons that the AF gave the job to
>Colorado since he had a great reputation as a scientist and
>an impartial man who would follow the evidence.
Hardly. The evidence indicates that Condon was all but "impartial".
>>Condon blatantly misrepresented the findings of his staff.
>
>Where are the complaints from the staff that their work was
>misrepresented?
There is no need for what is readily apparent, Twitch. Most of the
Staff agreed UFOs should be studied, but Condon recommended
they should not be. There are a number of obvious discrepancies
between Condon's summary to the point of serious distortion.
Twitch can't deal with that evidence, so he sets up a straw man.
"I won't accept what I can see with my own eyes," pontificates
Twitch, "I need the project members to tell it to me."
The telling fact that the committee members did support further
research during the project's time, and even after the project had
been completed is sufficient evidence.
>Isn't it funny that that isn't what Sturrock said?
>
>"Although both the director and the staff are cautious in
>stating questions, the staff tend to emphasize challenging
>cases and unanswered questions, whereas the director
>emphasizes the difficulty of further study and the
>probability that there is no scientific knowledge to be
>gained."
>
>P. A. Sturrock
>JSE Volume 1 Number 1: Page 75.
>
>Which is just the way this sort of project is supposed to be
>run.
Nonsense! Condon didn't do any investigating, he analysed not a
single case. He authored not a single word of the case chapters.
In other words, he was *never in a position* to go past the staff's
findings and just recommend his own, which were not based on
any experience and analysis of the data.
He knew that, so he made it *look* like he was representing his
staff. But in reality, he was seriously distorting their findings!
Terry Smith
> From: jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert)
> Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:08:40 GMT
> In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net posts more boring repetition:
> Twitch is saying that because Saunders' case was unconvincing, the
> recommendations penned down by Condon must have been "sound".
Jean is, as usual, ignoring that it is Saunder's case under consideration,
and is the claim that must be supported. If Condon's recommendations are
made on the basis that Suander's case [among others] is unconvincing, then
those recommendations are sound.
Terry
--
|Conference [n]: A meeting where Australian National Party ministers
|tell you what they have decided, and offer you the choice of taking it
|or taking it.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
[...]
>>Jean, why haven't you been able to post any quality evidence
>>that the general conclusion of the Condon Committee was
>>incorrect?
>
>Twitch, is your macro key stuck or something? You seem post the
>same fallacious blather over and over again.
>
Let's see, it is fallacious blather to ask you to post some
quality evidence that the general conclusion of the Condon
Committee was incorrect?
If that conclusion is correct, the rest of the report
stands, if that conclusion is incorrect, the rest of the
report fails.
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
That is the key, Jean.
All you have to do is to post some scientific advancement
resulting from the study of UFOs and you're home free.
If you can't find one decent example after 50 years of
studying UFOs, then the report looks good.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>Here's another interesting detail [...]
>>
>>An interesting detail is why can't Jean post some actual
>>evidence that the general conclusion of the Condon Committee
>>was incorrect?
>
>Darn, Twitch snipped the good stuff, like he always does.<snip of more repetition>
Darn, Jean has once again shown that he cannot post any
evidence that the general conclusion of the Condon Committee
was wrong!
After 50 years of investigation, he is still unable to post
some evidence so he resorts to opinions.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>>Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
>>>and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
>>>is a problem there."
>>
>>Sorry, Opinion doesn't count as evidence, Jean.
>
>Nonsense! Poher's evidence is that the staff texts differ vastly from Condon's
>summary. See the Sturrock quote below.
>
>>If the conclusion was wrong, there should be real evidence
>>of it in the report.
>>
>>There isn't any.
>
>Bullshit, Twitch.
Why not post the evidence that the general conclusion is
wrong then?
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Any scientific advancement resulting from the study of UFOs
will be sufficent.
>
>"... The analysis of evidence by categories <snip>
What scientific advancement was this, Jean?
>
>>Saunders and Levine couldn't provide any despite their
>>having access to the complete records of the Condon
>>Committee.
>>
>>30 years later, you still can't provide any quality evidence
>>that the conclusion is incorrect.
>
>The evidence is right there, in the pages of the report itself. <snip>
Then you should be able to post the scientific advancement,
Jean!
>Nonsense, Twitch. Sturrock summarized it nicely when he wrote:
>
>"... The analysis of evidence by categories [...]
The analysis of evidence by categories isn't a scientific
advancement, Jean.
>
>>>"Why is it that Craig, Saunders, Levine, Wadsworth, Ahrens[...]
>>
>>havn't been able to provide any quality evidence that the
>>general conclusion was wrong?
>
>More nonsense. Those people actually *wrote* the main body of the report,
>did the investigating and prepared the conclusions which Condon _should_
>have accurately represented in the summary, but didn't.
What scientific advancement resulted from what they *wrote*,
Jean?
>
[...]
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>>You certainly have some quality evidence there, Twitch!
>
>Twitch reduced my +130 line post to a single sentence.
>
>Telling behavior!
Yes, you posted opinions and irrelevant stuff, Jean.
Where is the scientific advancement that shows the general
conclusion is wrong, Jean?
You've tried every trick to avoid the obvious. That you
haven't posted any evidence whatsoever that the general
conclusion is incorrect. You keep just repeating that the
summary didn't agree with the write-up.
That doesn't show the general conclusion is wrong.
It just shows that Condon exercised his right as project
manager since the people under him couldn't convince him
that they were right.
You haven't shown any evidence which would have convinced
him either, Jean.
Just one scientific advancement would do the trick.
>
>>Talking about quality evidence, Jean, why haven't you been
>>able to post any quality evidence that the general
>>conclusion of the Condon Committee was incorrect?
>
>Twitch, your macro key is stuck and you are misrepresenting
>the Committee's structure/findings.
Then you should be able to post some scientific advancement
resulting from the study of UFOs, Jean.
I notice you keep cutting out the general conclusion so you
don't have to answer, Jean.
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Now, you can show it wrong by showing that something had
come from the study of UFOs in the 21 years prior to the
report that added to scientific knowledge, Jean.
Or you can show it wrong by showing that science has been
advanced in the following roughly 30 years by studying UFOs,
Jean.
Saying that the general conclusion doesn't represent the
opinions of the people on the project doesn't disprove the
general conclusion, Jean.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
[...]
>Hardly. You just don't seem capable of setting up a proper analogy.
>
>>The senior scientist/program manager made up a list of the
>>few things he believed were truly absolutely required and
>>none of the underlings agreed with it.
>[...]
>>Anyone comparing the final recommendations to the scientists
>>own reports would find differences far, far greater than any
>>from the Condon Committee. Yet, after the results from the
>>simulations the scientists all agreed that the
>>recommendations were fair and proper.
>
>This is a worthless analogy. To briefly summarize Twitch's point, he
>is saying that the final recommendations were different from the
>scientists' initial reports, but the scientists had to agree with it in
>the end.
>
>There is at least one great difference here.
>
[...]
Yes, I can show that they were wrong but you can't show that
Condon was wrong.
The difference of opinion can only be shown to be
significant if we can show one party wrong.
Condon, in the general conclusion wrote:
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Now, the only way to show that Condon was wrong is to show
that the general conclusion was wrong. The rest of the
recommendations stem largely from that.
But, after 50 years of study, Jean can't show any scientific
advance has resulted from the study of UFOs. So, he keeps
saying that the general conclusion disagrees with what the
junior members of the committee thought.
That isn't evidence of Condon being wrong or the juniors
being right, Jean.
You can, however, show that they were right and Condon was
wrong by showing us one scientific advance that has resulted
from the study of UFOs.
Otherwise, Condon's general conclusion looks pretty darn
good.
Dan Clore
Sorry to interpose in your little pissing match, but maybe an answer to
one question would help clear things up:
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
> >In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Why not post the evidence that the general conclusion is
> wrong then?
>
> "Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
> study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
> scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
> as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
> extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
> expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
>
> Any scientific advancement resulting from the study of UFOs
> will be sufficent.
What counts as a "scientific advancement"?
This is a serious question.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Jean van gemert
In article, root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) wrote:
>Jean is, as usual, ignoring that it is Saunder's case under consideration,
>and is the claim that must be supported.
Hell, I'm not ignoring anything. You _think_ I'm doing so because you
lack proper understanding here.
What is "under consideration" is the published edition of the Colorado
UFO study, not Saunders' book which was published separately as a
minority report.
What part of that sentence is unclear?
The Project's Committee did not evaluate something like "Saunders' case"
to see if UFOs should be studied further. They did their own investigating
of reports and reached their own conclusions.
What part of that sentence is unclear?
>If Condon's recommendations are made on the basis that Suander's case
>[among others] is unconvincing, then
This is blatant nonsense. Condon's recommendations were made on the
findings of his staff's investigations, which he quotes and paraphrases in
his summary. There is NO talk of "Saunders' case" being "unconvincing"
as the foundation for his recommendations.
What part of that sentence is unclear?
Wether Saunders could muster a decent argument or disagreed with the
explanation of some cases by other Committee members is unrelated to
the findings of the Committee members.
What part of that sentence is unclear?
The issue under debate here is that Condon blatantly misrepresented and
distorted his staff's findings in his summary. As Dr. Sturrock writes:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
What part of that sentence is unclear?
Next time before you jump in, at least attempt to get a good grasp of the
issue _before_ mouthing off.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
"This site is constructed around debate, with a bias -- stated -- toward the
hypothesis that aliens are responsible for UFOs. But the debate offered is
very real. Intelligence abounds here" - Whitley Strieber
____________________________________________________________________________
Alan DeKok
In article <355B1F...@columbia-center.org>,
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Any scientific advancement resulting from the study of UFOs
>> will be sufficent.
>
>What counts as a "scientific advancement"?
Any NEW thing learned from the study of UFOs. i.e. Something that we
didn't already know about the world.
We may have learned a lot about the psychology of UFO proponents, but I
don't think that counts. If it wasn't UFOs for them, it would be pixies,
psychic phenomena, witches, or religion. All of these items have
many characteristics in common with UFOs. The most notable one is lack
of evidence, and strong pro-UFO opinions by some people, despite that
lack of evidence.
Alan DeKok.
Dan Clore
Alan DeKok wrote:
> In article <355B1F...@columbia-center.org>,
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Any scientific advancement resulting from the study of UFOs
> >> will be sufficent.
> >
> >What counts as a "scientific advancement"?
>
> Any NEW thing learned from the study of UFOs. i.e. Something that we
> didn't already know about the world.
Okay. How about the sort of statistical correlations that Michael
Persinger uses to buttress his Tectonic Strain Theory? (Note I say the
empirical data, not the theory itself.)
A brief overview of his theory and the data that support it is here:
http://www.laurentian.ca/www/neurosci/tectonicedit.htm
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Let's see, it is fallacious blather to ask you to post some
>quality evidence that the general conclusion of the Condon
>Committee was incorrect?
And here Twitch goes again, pretending once more that the
"general conclusion" was authored by the entire "committee"
despite that Condon authored it alone, and that most of the
committee supported further UFO investigations.
>All you have to do is to post some scientific advancement
>resulting from the study of UFOs and you're home free.
The study of the Belgium "UFO" radar tracks resulted in the
understanding and classification of a new radar anomaly, in
IUR Auguste Meessen, professor of physics at the Catholic
University of Louvai, wrote that it:
"led to some notable [previously unknown] problems in
atmospheric physics[,] and useful knowledge for radar
operators"
He then added:
"this discovery was simply a by-product of rational study of
the UFO problem. As such it underlines that it is worthwhile
to look carefully at mysterious phenomena."
>If you can't find one decent example after 50 years of
>studying UFOs, then the report looks good.
Which is total nonsense of course. had Condon recommended
further investigations, we would have had ten times better data
than we have now.
nos...@linkononline.net
On 14 May 1998 14:22:04 -0400, aland@achi!!es.net (Alan DeKok) wrote:
>
> We may have learned a lot about the psychology of UFO proponents, but I
>don't think that counts. If it wasn't UFOs for them, it would be pixies,
>psychic phenomena, witches, or religion. All of these items have
>many characteristics in common with UFOs. The most notable one is lack
>of evidence, and strong pro-UFO opinions by some people, despite that
>lack of evidence.
OK Alan, you've done it now. Looks like you are putting down pixies, and
man, if they get wind of that, that means trouble! If I were you, I'd be
sleeping with one eye open from now on 'till this blows over.
Wf
Richard Caldwell
In Article Re: "Scientific Advancement" (was: Response to Sagans Sci. Am
Essay//Sagan Modern Day Menzel Caught Red-Handed) , Dan Clore
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Alan DeKok wrote:
> > In article <355B1F...@columbia-center.org>,
> > Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> > >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Any scientific advancement resulting from the study of UFOs
> > >> will be sufficient.
> > >
> > >What counts as a "scientific advancement"?
> >
> > Any NEW thing learned from the study of UFOs. i.e. Something that we
> > didn't already know about the world.
>
> Okay. How about the sort of statistical correlations that Michael
> Persinger uses to buttress his Tectonic Strain Theory? (Note I say the
> empirical data, not the theory itself.)
>
> A brief overview of his theory and the data that support it is here:
> http://www.laurentian.ca/www/neurosci/tectonicedit.htm
I definitely agree that, if a certain class of UFO's, like the Marfa
Lights, turn out to be due to seismic strain, that is a definite advance in
the sciences of geology and seismology.
I also believe that other classes of UFO's may contribute to the science of
meteorology.
What other sciences may be advanced by the study of UFO's is open to
speculation.
Richard
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) wrote:
>
>>Jean is, as usual, ignoring that it is Saunder's case under consideration,
>>and is the claim that must be supported.
>
>Hell, I'm not ignoring anything. You _think_ I'm doing so because you
>lack proper understanding here.
>
>What is "under consideration" is the published edition of the Colorado
>UFO study, not Saunders' book which was published separately as a
>minority report.
Yep. I was published as a minority report but having full
access to the data that the Condon Committee had and full
access to the data that NICAP had, Saunders couldn't provide
any decent evidence against the Condon Committee general
conclusion or recommendations.
Why?
Because there was no good data.
Contrary to Friedman, absence of evidence is evidence.
>
>What part of that sentence is unclear?
>
>The Project's Committee did not evaluate something like "Saunders' case"
>to see if UFOs should be studied further. They did their own investigating
>of reports and reached their own conclusions.
Yep. But, Saunders had full access to all of their data and
investigations.
Of course, the junior scientists on the Condon Committee
couldn't convince Condon, they couldn't convince the
National Academy of Sciences, etc.
The National Academy of Sciences didn't just review the
general conclusion and the recommendations, they reviewed
the entire document and a lot of other articles by skeptics
and believers, including 3 articles from MacDonald.
"We think that the methodology and approach were well
chosen, in accordance with accepted standards of scientific
investigation."
"We are unanimous in the opinion that this has been a very
creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant
techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem."
<snip>
>Wether Saunders could muster a decent argument or disagreed with the
>explanation of some cases by other Committee members is unrelated to
>the findings of the Committee members.
Sorry, but he had access to all of their research and still
couldn't find any decent evidence, which is evidence in
itself.
[...]
>The issue under debate here is that Condon blatantly misrepresented and
>distorted his staff's findings in his summary.
More McCarthyite postings from Jean.
Condon didn't blatantly misrepresent anything.
He allowed his staff to write their own sections of the
report in their own words. He met with them for a full day
before he wrote his summary and general conclusions.
The staff were totally unable to convince him that they were
right. The staff was totally unable to convince the NAS
that they were right.
There is still no evidence that they were right. Which is
evidence that they weren't right. Not conclusive by any
means, but decent evidence.
[...]
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>Let's see, it is fallacious blather to ask you to post some
>>quality evidence that the general conclusion of the Condon
>>Committee was incorrect?
>
>And here Twitch goes again, pretending once more that the
>"general conclusion" was authored by the entire "committee"
And here Jean goes blatantly misrepresenting what Twitch
said.
He only distorts what other people write because he can't
post some quality evidence that the general conclusion of
the Condon Committe was incorrect.
[...]
>
>>All you have to do is to post some scientific advancement
>>resulting from the study of UFOs and you're home free.
>
>The study of the Belgium "UFO" radar tracks resulted in the
>understanding and classification of a new radar anomaly, in
>IUR Auguste Meessen, professor of physics at the Catholic
>University of Louvai, wrote that it:
Would you please post a reference? In what peer-reviewed
journal of scientific repute did this appear.
>
>"led to some notable [previously unknown] problems in
>atmospheric physics[,] and useful knowledge for radar
>operators"
>
>He then added:
>
>"this discovery was simply a by-product of rational study of
>the UFO problem. As such it underlines that it is worthwhile
>to look carefully at mysterious phenomena."
>
I love it!
We should study the UFO "problem" to learn more about
radars!
Notice that nothing here
>>If you can't find one decent example after 50 years of
>>studying UFOs, then the report looks good.
>
>Which is total nonsense of course. had Condon recommended
>further investigations, we would have had ten times better data
>than we have now.
>
But Saunders studied it, Levine studied it, Macabee studied
it, Friedman studied it, MacDonald studied it, Hynek studied
it besides all of the gov't committees.
Then we have all the work done by NICAP, CAUS, CUFOS, MUFON,
etc.
Are you saying that all of them were incompetent?
Yet they have found nothing of note.
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
That still looks pretty good.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Sorry to interpose in your little pissing match, but maybe an answer to
>one question would help clear things up:
>
Come on in, the water's fine.
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van gemert) wrote:
>> >In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Why not post the evidence that the general conclusion is
>> wrong then?
>>
>> "Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
>> study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
>> scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
>> as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
>> extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
>> expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
>>
>> Any scientific advancement resulting from the study of UFOs
>> will be sufficent.
>
>What counts as a "scientific advancement"?
>
>This is a serious question.
>
Any scientific findings of relative importance agreed to by
the majority of scientists about UFOs.
It needn't be something like the physics of propulsion.
Confirmation of the ETH would certainly qualify.
Any information about radars, the atmosphere, psychological
findings, etc. which could have been gotten from studying
anything else would be eliminated.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
nos...@linkononline.net wrote:
Poor Alan won't be able to get to Never-Never land until he
apologizes!
Tinker Bell was a pixie, wasn't she?
Dan Clore
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> Any scientific advancement resulting from the study of UFOs
> >> will be sufficent.
> >
> >What counts as a "scientific advancement"?
> >
> >This is a serious question.
> >
> Any scientific findings of relative importance agreed to by
> the majority of scientists about UFOs.
As I said to another poster:
Okay. How about the sort of statistical correlations that Michael
Persinger uses to buttress his Tectonic Strain Theory? (Note I say the
empirical data, not the theory itself.)
A brief overview of his theory and the data that support it is here:
http://www.laurentian.ca/www/neurosci/tectonicedit.htm
> It needn't be something like the physics of propulsion.
> Confirmation of the ETH would certainly qualify.
I don't happen to believe in the ETH.
Dan Wojciechowski
> >>and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
> >>is a problem there."
> >
> >Sorry, Opinion doesn't count as evidence, Jean.
>
> Nonsense! Poher's evidence is that the staff texts differ vastly from Condon's
> summary. See the Sturrock quote below.
>
Jean, you've been over and over this same point. Simply quote
some examples of the vast differences and you, I, and Twitch
will all agree. Then we can move on.
--
Dan (Woj...)
dma...@lucent.com
================================================================
"I felt so symbolic, yesterday.
If I knew Picasso,
I'd buy myself a grey guitar and play."
================================================================
Dan Wojciechowski
> >Committe report which invalidates this conclusion?
>
> Well, Twitch, for starters I would say the Condon report itself!
>
> and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
> is a problem there."
>
This is Poher's opinion, and you seem to agree. Good. Please
post some of the "problems", "disagreements", and "misrepresentations"
found in the Condon report and its summary. The point being, if
can post these, we will have to agree with you. If you cannot
post any, then, presumably they don't exist, and you'll have to
change your opinion. So, any problem with that?
> Dr. J. Allen Hynek: "If one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and
> concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably
> find the Condon report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality
> of the UFO phenomenon."
>
Based on Twitch's posts, the summary agrees that there is a UFO
phenomenon. So, what's the problem?
> Dr. Robert Baker: "In sum, the veracity of most of the study seems to be
> beyond question... the group has presented important evidence that seems
> to justify scientific investigation along many general and specialized
> frontiers."
>
Again, based on Twitch's posts, the summary recommends that any
proposal to investigate UFOs should be given due consideration.
So, what's the problem?
...
> Dr. Bruce Murray: "On balance, Hynek's defense of UFO's as a valid, if
> speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock
> them out of existence."
>
O.K. I've seen no evidence that the Condon report mocks anything.
Can you support this with some references?
...
> Why did Michael Wertheimer, who wrote a chapter on sensation and visual
> perception of the Condon report, argree that there remains a percentage of
> cases that involve "events in the sky that cannot be easily accounted for
> with current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and aeronautics"?
>
Uhm. Because this is true? Nothing in the summary disagrees with
this statement.
> Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
> Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
> of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
> journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
>
I thought the summary said that.
...
Jean, Jean: On the topic of the summary disagreeing with the
details, I haven't seen any evidence of this. Clearly, if you've
seen it, simply post some examples. i.e. "Chapter x says 'blah
blah' while the sumarry says 'wha wha'." Otherwise, you seem
to be complaining for no reason.
Dan Wojciechowski
Jean van gemert wrote:
...
> The recommendations were written by someone who had not
> investigated a single case and apparently wasn't even able to
> report the findings of his staff properly, to the point of stating
> outright falsehoods!
Jean: You've made a rather strong statement. Luckily your
statement is easy to defend. Simply post an examples of
"outright falsehoods".
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Dan Wojciechowski <Dan.R.Woj...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Jean van gemert wrote:
>>
>> In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> >>Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
>> >>and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
>> >>is a problem there."
>> >
>> >Sorry, Opinion doesn't count as evidence, Jean.
>>
>> Nonsense! Poher's evidence is that the staff texts differ vastly from Condon's
>> summary. See the Sturrock quote below.
>>
>...
>Jean, you've been over and over this same point. Simply quote
>some examples of the vast differences and you, I, and Twitch
>will all agree. Then we can move on.
>--
But even disagreement is not the same as Condon being
incorrect which is Jean's point.
Either side can be incorrect in a disagreement.
It will take some evidence that one side is incorrect to
answer.
It isn't possible to show Condon is correct, it is possible
to show that there is some evidence that he is correct but
nothing more.
However, it should be possible to show that the junior
researchers are correct which is all Jean has to do to prove
Condon Incorrect.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Dan Wojciechowski <Dan.R.Woj...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Jean van gemert wrote:
>>
>> In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> >Ok, Jean, what evidence has been found since the Condon
>> >Committe report which invalidates this conclusion?
>>
>> Well, Twitch, for starters I would say the Condon report itself!
>>
>> Dr. Claude Poher: "Well, if you really read the report from cover to cover
>> and don't just stop with Condon's summary, you will realize that there
>> is a problem there."
>>
>
>This is Poher's opinion, and you seem to agree. Good. Please
>post some of the "problems", "disagreements", and "misrepresentations"
>found in the Condon report and its summary. The point being, if
>can post these, we will have to agree with you. If you cannot
>post any, then, presumably they don't exist, and you'll have to
>change your opinion. So, any problem with that?
Actually, just posting disagreements between Condon and his
juniors doesn't show Condon is incorrect.
Misrepresentations is merely Jean's way of saying that they
disagreed. How can Condon be accused legitimately of
misrepresenting something when he allowed them free reign to
write whatever they wished to write?
>
>> Dr. J. Allen Hynek: "If one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and
>> concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably
>> find the Condon report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality
>> of the UFO phenomenon."
>>
>
>Based on Twitch's posts, the summary agrees that there is a UFO
>phenomenon. So, what's the problem?
>
Everyone agrees that UFOs exist. What they are is another
matter.
>> Dr. Robert Baker: "In sum, the veracity of most of the study seems to be
>> beyond question... the group has presented important evidence that seems
>> to justify scientific investigation along many general and specialized
>> frontiers."
>>
>
>Again, based on Twitch's posts, the summary recommends that any
>proposal to investigate UFOs should be given due consideration.
>So, what's the problem?
The problem is that some people don't like Condon's summary.
Yet, they cannot present any evidence that he is incorrect.
They say things like the group has presented important
evidence that SEEMS to...
IOW, they can't show Condon is incorrect.
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Still stands. It cannot be shown to be correct, but it can
be shown to be incorrect.
>...
>> Dr. Bruce Murray: "On balance, Hynek's defense of UFO's as a valid, if
>> speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock
>> them out of existence."
>>
>
>O.K. I've seen no evidence that the Condon report mocks anything.
>Can you support this with some references?
>
>...
>> Why did Michael Wertheimer, who wrote a chapter on sensation and visual
>> perception of the Condon report, argree that there remains a percentage of
>> cases that involve "events in the sky that cannot be easily accounted for
>> with current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and aeronautics"?
>>
>
>Uhm. Because this is true? Nothing in the summary disagrees with
>this statement.
Notice that he didn't state that it cannot be accounted for
with current knowledge of sensation and visual perception
research?
The simple fact is that eyewitness testimony is horribly
bad.
In The Effects of Time Delay and Credibility on Eyewitness
Testimony by Jason Seiler, Jason Zawada, Debra Heard, Karrie
Smith, Marcy Broysdal:
"The effect of prolonged time intervals between the
introduction of misleading information and recall tests were
studied to determine if higher rates of the misinformation
effect were produced. The variable of perceived credibility
of an eyewitness was also examined to find whether it
influenced the likelihood of accepting false testimony. This
experiment was based on previous research initiated by
Loftus (1975) on metamemory and the misinformation effect in
eyewitness testimony. Based on the premise that memory for
an event becomes weakened with time, increased time
intervals should result in larger acceptance of
misinformation. Results of the experiment, obtained by
analysis of accuracy and confidence levels, were consistent
with this finding. Social factors such as perceived status
also affected the susceptibility of individuals to the
misinformation effect... Results from these experiments
suggest that information to which a witness is exposed
following an event is integrated into the individual's
memory, regardless of the veracity of the information
(Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). Another striking finding
from misinformation studies includes high reports of
subjective confidence ratings by individuals concerning the
accuracy of their memory, even when they incorrectly
recalled an event (Loftus & Hoffman, 1989). The likelihood
of false information about an event being adopted as
truth is affected by the interaction of several factors,
including age, cognitive, affective, environmental and
social variables ( O'Sullivan et al., 1995). "
Also, try looking at:
Loftus, E.F., & Loftus, G.R. (1980). On the permanence of
stored information in the human brain. American
Psychologist, 35, 409-420.
From Loftus, E.F. & Pickrell, J.E. (1995) The formation of
false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725.
"Literally thousands of studies have documented how our
memories can be disrupted by things that we experienced
earlier (proactive interference) or things that
we experienced later (retroactive interference)....The new,
post-event information often becomes incorporated into the
recollection, supplementing or altering it, sometimes in
dramatic ways. ...
misleading post-event information can alter a person's
recollection in a powerful ways, even leading to the
creation of false memories of objects that never in fact
existed."
IOW, eyewitness testimony cannot really be trusted to be
factually correct.
>
>> Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
>> Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
>> of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
>> journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
>>
>
>I thought the summary said that.
"We believe that any scientist with adequate training and
credentials who does come up with a clearly defined,
specific proposal for study (of UFOs) should be supported.
We think that all the agencies of the federal government,
and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to
consider UFO research proposals along with others submitted
to them on an open-minded basis."
>
>...
>
>Jean, Jean: On the topic of the summary disagreeing with the
>details, I haven't seen any evidence of this. Clearly, if you've
>seen it, simply post some examples. i.e. "Chapter x says 'blah
>blah' while the sumarry says 'wha wha'." Otherwise, you seem
>to be complaining for no reason.
>
Even if he posts some example it merely shows that there is
a disagreement, not that Condon was incorrect.
All he has to do to show that Condon was incorrect is to
show that he was wrong and some scientific advancements have
resulted from UFO research.
Obviously, it should be regarding UFOs and what causes the
phenomena, not showing that radars can be wrong.
Jean van gemert
Here's another interesting detail re Condon and his staff's results. In
JUFOS #95/96 Michael Swords presents a detailed investigation of
the Condon study, and at one point writes:
"Hartmann's photoanalyses are perhaps the model for proper
reserve and objectivity. Even here, though, Condon had some
influence. Hartmann wished to make some reasonable points
in his conclusions regarding poorly conducted Air Force inves-
tigations, and that the extraterrestrial hypothesis was at least
consistent with the 2% or so puzzling unsolved cases. He also
recommended further research. Condon wrote "Good God!" on
the draft and crossed it all out."
Jean van gemert
In article, Dan Wojciechowski <Dan.R.Woj...@lucent.com> wrote:
>This is Poher's opinion, and you seem to agree. Good. Please
>post some of the "problems", "disagreements", and "misrepresentations"
>found in the Condon report and its summary. The point being, if
>can post these, we will have to agree with you. If you cannot
>post any, then, presumably they don't exist, and you'll have to
>change your opinion. So, any problem with that?
Not at all. I excerpted and posted a few examples from Sturrock's paper in
another post, at your request.
>> Dr. J. Allen Hynek: "If one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and
>> concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably
>> find the Condon report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality
>> of the UFO phenomenon."
>
>Based on Twitch's posts, the summary agrees that there is a UFO
>phenomenon. So, what's the problem?
I have seen no evidence that "the summary agrees that there is a UFO
phenomenon" (with "UFO phenomenon" meaning novel unexplained
phenomena). Could you post the part where Condon says this?
>Again, based on Twitch's posts, the summary recommends that any
>proposal to investigate UFOs should be given due consideration.
>So, what's the problem?
The "problem" is this; he recommended that no funding or ongoing
research be initiated. He stated that UFOs have not contributed to
science and will likely not in the future. (This despite the fact that
the majority of the staff would disagree with him on this point. He
even wrote "we think" and "our conclusion", as if representing the
entire staff with his statements).
Condon's summary also gave the strong impression there was little
compelling and puzzling about UFO reports. Comming from a man
with Condon's posture, this was a death sentence. Blue Book was
closed because nothing useful would probably turn up. Scientists
considered the UFO issue dealt with.
Condon writing that people should't be discouraged from submitting
research proposals is subtle and politically clever, because he knew
with the recommendations he had just made the chance of any being
approved was close to nil.
>> Dr. Bruce Murray: "On balance, Hynek's defense of UFO's as a valid, if
>> speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock
>> them out of existence."
>
>O.K. I've seen no evidence that the Condon report mocks anything.
>Can you support this with some references?
Murray is referring to Condon, the person, not the Condon report in total.
>> Why did Michael Wertheimer, who wrote a chapter on sensation and visual
>> perception of the Condon report, argree that there remains a percentage of
>> cases that involve "events in the sky that cannot be easily accounted for
>> with current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and aeronautics"?
>
>Uhm. Because this is true? Nothing in the summary disagrees with
>this statement.
Quoting Sturrock:
"The general impression given by Condon's summary is that there is nothing
unusual or significant in the UFO phenomenon."
You have not read the summary, have you?
>> Why did Gerald Rothberg, one of the Project's research associates, write in
>> Physics Today that the "residue of unexplained reports" warrants recognition
>> of UFOs as a "legitimate scientific controversy," adding that a "reputable
>> journal" should open itself to "analyses of UFO reports"?
>
>I thought the summary said that.
No, it doesn't. Where does it say that? The summary recommended that further
investigation be _stopped_. Rorthberg on the other hand recommends extended
investigations. Vastly different points of view here.
>Jean, Jean: On the topic of the summary disagreeing with the
>details, I haven't seen any evidence of this. Clearly, if you've
>seen it, simply post some examples. i.e. "Chapter x says 'blah
>blah' while the sumarry says 'wha wha'."
Which I have posted a few times already, actually.
Jean van gemert
In article, Dan Wojciechowski <Dan.R.Woj...@lucent.com> wrote:
[I said:]
>> Nonsense! Poher's evidence is that the staff texts differ vastly from
> Condon's summary. See the Sturrock quote below.
>....
>Jean, you've been over and over this same point. Simply quote
>some examples of the vast differences and you, I, and Twitch
>will all agree. Then we can move on.
Now this is really strange. I must have posted examples, say, at least
five times or so, and you're saying I haven't yet done so? Luckily it's an
easy copy and paste job.
==========================================================================
2. Condon's Summary
Q. In the case of the Condon study, were the Committee members' findings
fairly represented in Condon's "Summary of the Study" chapter?
A. Although Condon had made promises to NICAP and some of his staff that
they would be, the evidence for this is lacking and in fact the opposite
is rather true. Regarding the lack of correlation of Condon's summary
with the staff's findings, I have excerpted following form the article
"An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project" by Dr.
Peter A. Sturrock, in JSE, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987, pp. 75-100. Sturrock is
a professor of astrophysics at the Stanford University Center for Space
Science and Astrophysics. Sturrock writes in his paper:
"... The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are
substantial and significant differences between the findings of the
project staff and those that the director [Condon] attributes to the
project."
Sturrock continues (on photographic cases):
"In his summary of this category, Hartmann (Condon & Gillmor, 1968,
p. 86) describes a "residual group of unidentifieds" which "is not
inconsistent with the hypothesis that unknown and extraordinary air-
craft have penetrated the airspace of the United States," although
"none yields sufficient evidence to establish this hypothesis."
"It is interesting to compare Hartmann's report and case studies
with Condon's two-page summary of "Study of UFO Photographs"
(Condon & Gillmor 1968, pp. 35-37). Only one paragraph is clearly
based on Hartmann's work. This reads:
Hartmann made a detailed study of 35 photographic cases (Section
IV, Chapter 3) referring to the period 1966-1968, and a selection
of eighteen older cases, some of which have been widely acclaimed
in the UFO literature. This photographic study led to the identi-
fication of a number of widely publicized photographs as being
ordinary objects, others as fabrications, and others as innocent
misidentifications of things photographed under unusual conditions."
"In fact, Hartmann discusses 14 cases, of which six are from the
period 1966-1968. Concerning the McMinnville, Oregon, case (Case
46), Condon refers not to the analysis made by Hartmann, but to
an analysis made by Everitt Merritt, who was not a member of the
project staff, but a photogrammatrist on the staff of the Autome-
trics Division of the Raytheon Company of Alexandria, Virginia.
Merritt found that "the UFO images turned out to be too fuzzy to
allow worthwhile further parametric analysis." Condon reports at
length Merritt's analysis of another case (Zanesville Ohio; not
discussed anywhere else in the report) that was considered to be
a hoax, and also discusses two photographs published in Look ma-
gazine, quoting the analysis of Staff Sergeant Earl Schroeder of
the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Schroeder is not listed as
being affiliated with the Colorado UFO Project, and the case he
analyzed was not considered by the project staff."
"Apart from generalizations, Condon devotes only one and one-half
page to discussion of photographic evidence. Of this one and one-
half pages, 60% is devoted to the work of Meritt, 30% to the work
of Schroeder, and only 10% to the work of Hartmann. Further, as
we have seen, Condon's summary of the work of his own staffmember
(Hartmann) was quite inadequate and -- for whatever reasons --
misleading."
On Condon's summary of radar cases Sturrock writes:
"Thayer, in his summary of radar-visual cases [for Condon], states:
'There is a small, but significant, residue of cases from the radar-
visual files that have no plausible explanation such propagation
phenomena and/or misinterpreted man-made objects.'"
"Condon, in his "Summary of the Study," devotes almost three pages
to discussion of radar sightings of UFOs, but his comments on the
case studies of the Colorado Project are confined to two short
paragraphs comprising only 10% of Condon's discussion of radar
sightings. As an evaluation of these case studies, he quotes from
Thayer's summary: "... there was no case where the meteorological
data available tended to negate the anomalous propagation hypothe-
sis...." This is, at best, an unfortunate quotation, implying that
Thayer regards the anomalous propagation hypothesis as offering a
plausible explanation of every case. A more complete quotation of
Thayer's remark (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 172) is as follows:
"The reader should note that the assignment of cases into the
probable AP cause category could have been made on the basis of
the observational testimony alone. That is to say, that there was
no case where the meteorological data available tended to negate
the anomalous propagation hypothesis, thereby causing that case
to be assigned to some other category."
"In the table (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 173) to which Thayer is
referring, we see that for only 19 of the 35 cases does Thayer
regard anomalous propagation to be the "most likely or most
plausible explanation." Thayer's assessment is perhaps presented
more clearly by a later quotation (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 174):
"... where the observational data pointed to anomalous propagation
as the probable cause of an UFO incident, the meteorological data
are overwhelmingly in favour of the plausibility of the AP hypo-
thesis."
Thaver has clearly concluded that a substantial fraction of radar
observations are probably due to anomalous propagation effects; but
it is equally clear that he does not ascribe _all_ radar observa-
tions to this phenomenon. The impression given by Condon's summary
concerning radar-visual cases is, therefore, at variance with Thayer's
summary and with the cases on which Thayer's summary is based."
Dr. Sturrock then summarizes by saying that:
"Condon's account of radar cases is very similar to his account of
photographic evidence: very little of what he writes makes reference
to the work of his staff, and what he does write about his staff's
work is misleading."
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
[Twitch wrote:]
>>>Let's see, it is fallacious blather to ask you to post some
>>>quality evidence that the general conclusion of the Condon
>>>Committee was incorrect?
[I said:]
>>And here Twitch goes again, pretending once more that the
>>"general conclusion" was authored by the entire "committee"
[Twitch retorted:]
>And here Jean goes blatantly misrepresenting what Twitch
>said.
But can't pinpoint what I'm misrepresenting because I am not
misrepresenting anything.
>He only distorts what other people write because he can't
>post some quality evidence that the general conclusion of
>the Condon Committe was incorrect.
My answer to this is the same as it has been for the last +20
postings. Twitch just repeats his silly fallacious rant that the
"conclusion" was authored by the entire committee, yet this
ignores the fact that Condon alone wrote it and that it is not
consistent with the knowledge that the staff did support the
UFO investigations to be continued.
The AIAA and many other scientists noted this too, that little
of the staff results could be found in the summary, and many
that were had been misrepresented. The AIAA even went so
far to acknowledge that Condon had weaved his own opinion
into the summary, rather than the staff's results.
>>The study of the Belgium "UFO" radar tracks resulted in the
>>understanding and classification of a new radar anomaly, in
>>IUR Auguste Meessen, professor of physics at the Catholic
>>University of Louvai, wrote that it:
>
>Would you please post a reference?
For starters, IUR, May/June issue, 1991.
>In what peer-reviewed journal of scientific repute did this appear.
The study didn't appear (as far as I know) in a scientific journal, but (as
is very usual with military reports of this kind) was published separately
as a report by the Electronic War Center of the Belgian Air Force.
>>"this discovery was simply a by-product of rational study of
>>the UFO problem. As such it underlines that it is worthwhile
>>to look carefully at mysterious phenomena."
>
>I love it!
>
>We should study the UFO "problem" to learn more about
>radars!
Twitch, your inability to appropriately reflect on what is written because
you seem to read it through some sort of weird filter is astounding. No,
he did not say we should study UFOs "to learn more about radar," he
said it was a "BY-PRODUCT" of UFO study, which is clearly a vastly
different thing.
>>Which is total nonsense of course. had Condon recommended
>>further investigations, we would have had ten times better data
>>than we have now.
>
>But Saunders studied it, Levine studied it, Macabee studied
>it, Friedman studied it, MacDonald studied it, Hynek studied
>it besides all of the gov't committees.
>
>Then we have all the work done by NICAP, CAUS, CUFOS, MUFON,
>etc.
>
>Are you saying that all of them were incompetent?
Huh? What sort of reading of my statement, that we would have gotten
better data if Condon had recommended investigations, is that? So no,
I am not saying that. There's nothing in my statement that warrants that
judgement in the first place.
>Yet they have found nothing of note.
"They"? You must mean Condon. The investigating staff found sufficiently
interesting data, as has been explained.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Yes, I can show that they were wrong but you can't show that
>Condon was wrong.
More of Twitch's nonsense. Condon is shown wrong by the content of
his "own" report, that his staff proposed extending UFO research and
not closing it down like Condon did.
>Condon, in the general conclusion wrote:
>"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
^^^^^^^
Condon blatantly misrepresenting most of his own staff.
>But, after 50 years of study, Jean can't show any scientific
>advance has resulted from the study of UFOs. So, he keeps
>saying that the general conclusion disagrees with what the
>junior members of the committee thought.
A couple of comments here. "50 years of study" doesn't necessarily
translate to "50 years of quality study". The flaws of Blue Book and
similar projects are well documented, being only "filing cabinets" with
little to no decent follow-up investigations.
In one of his other posts Twitch is quite clear what he would consider
scientific advancement; "Confirmation of the ETH". Does Twitch expect
such evidence would easily turn up while the people who are "investigating"
UFOs have little means nor much funding, and is a hobby for most?
Perhaps Twitch would like to explain what sort of evidence would be
"confirmation of the ETH" and how organisations like MUFON could
come by such evidence? You can defend your prediction, right?
Twitch has an exaggerated idea of the level of research people have been
able to afford in this field, not to mention the difficulty of deriving
anyadvanced results from it, since the very minds needed to do that are either
driven off by people such as Condon, or are not able to afford to work in the
field due to lack of funding.
In any case, the most basic answer to Twitch question is very simple.
UFOlogists have documented a novel unexplained anomaly with such
and such characteristics. That in itself is scientific advancement, as
it's made us aware of something we didn't know before.
Twitch disagrees, simply because he doesn't agree that there _are_
novel UFO, prefering to chalk it all up to hoaxes, misidentifications,
etc. instead. Of course, now one can see why the Condon staff did
advocate further research, because most of them agreed that some
cases _were_ unlikely to be explained that way.
>That isn't evidence of Condon being wrong or the juniors
>being right, Jean.
Ah, but Twitch, let's not pretend Condon and his staff were at the same
"level" when it came to the effort put into the project. Condon did not do
any investigating, he analysed not a single case. He authored not one
word of the case chapters.
Yet Twitch pretends Condon has the same authority on these matters
as did the total investigative staff!
The staff did the work, Twitch, agreeing that UFOs should be studied
further scientifically. Condon apparently differed but had not done one
investigation and liked to berate UFO crackpot cases instead. I don't
think it's that tough a choice to make. I'll pick the staff findings above
anything that's not based on experience with, and analysis of, the
relevant data.
>Otherwise, Condon's general conclusion looks pretty darn
>good.
And again I'm not surprised, Twitch thinks it's all hoaxes, birds, lens
flares, etc. The Condon study was supposed to recommended further
investigation with the emphasis on improved evidence gathering.
Condon's conclusions look "darn good" only to the hardheads who are
steadfastly convinced there is nothing to the issue, and that expanding
the investigation with some serious funding would bring nothing without
the investigations ever having started in the first place!
Great logic, Twitch.
Jean van gemert
In article, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Where is the scientific advancement that shows the general
>conclusion is wrong, Jean?
>
>You've tried every trick to avoid the obvious. That you
Such nonsense! I have answered that a number of times, if anyone
would be avoiding anything it would be you, most certainly. You do
seem to be very twitchy for example when it comes to the evidence
that Ed Condon wasn't the epitome of objectivity, like trying to get
people fired just because they wanted to
>haven't posted any evidence whatsoever that the general
>conclusion is incorrect. You keep just repeating that the
>summary didn't agree with the write-up.
And what a dummy you are, Twitch. Of course I keep repeating that,
because the "general conclusion" was to be premised on the project
"write-up" (staff investigations) from the beginning. If the conclusions
don't follow from the staff investigations, and are *misrepresented*
badly to boot, that doesn't exactly bode well for Condon's conclusion
now does it? The staff decided UFOs warant further study, they were
left with an even higher percentage of cases they couldn't explain that
were the cause for the Condon study in the first place.
>That doesn't show the general conclusion is wrong.
Obviously it does, it's just that you don't (yet) get that part.
>It just shows that Condon exercised his right as project
>manager since the people under him couldn't convince him
>that they were right.
So where does Condon say they are wrong Twitch, that he overruled
their assessments because they "couldn't convince him"? Twitch is
just looking for excuses, there is no such thing in the report. Condon
in fact, quotes various times from the staff investigation chapters to
"inform" the readers what his staff had found. The problem is that he
tends to quote them out of context.
We also know that Condon referred to the entire project rather than
specifically himself (e.g. "our conclusion...") in his summary, so the
fantasy situation where Condon dissents with his staff and therefore
writes up a different conclusion isn't very plausible either.
>You haven't shown any evidence which would have convinced
>him either, Jean.
Obvious answer: how could I, he is dead. <snicker>
What isn't particularly flattering is your presumption you have the
authority to speak for Condon as well.
>>Twitch, your macro key is stuck and you are misrepresenting
>>the Committee's structure/findings.
>
>Then you should be able to post some scientific advancement
>resulting from the study of UFOs, Jean.
Documentation of an anomaly, Twitch. An anomaly that should have
been sufficiently investigated with more effort to produce better, and
more, evidence. That would have happened had Condon followed his
staff's findings, instead of inserting his own bias that was based on
"examination" of crackpot contactee cases only.
>I notice you keep cutting out the general conclusion so you
>don't have to answer, Jean.
>
>"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
>study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
>scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
>as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
>extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
>expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Nonsense, Twitch. You darn well know I have already answered this a
couple of times. "Our general conclusion" enforces what I said earlier,
in any case. Although the staff did not write or contribute a single word
to the summary, Condon gave the impression that the conclusion is
that of the whole project staff, which we know is totally misleading.
>Now, you can show it wrong... [etc.]
It's shown wrong by comparing the summary to the staff findings which
were pretty clear on most occasions.
Caleb R. Storms
Is a copy of the report in its complete form available some where ? I would
be very much interested in reading it.
Thanks
Jerry Cohen
In article <czy71.2289$Xd.32...@news2.atl.bellsouth.net>,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JC: Hello Caleb,
And while you're at it and if you missed this post,
take a look at James McDonald's analysis of the "11/4/57
Kirtland AFB case," previously investigated by both Project
Blue Book and the Condon Committee. See if you can figure
out what it was.
McDonald found some interesting evidence ignored by
both of these "official" groups. This is one of several
interesting cases that occurred within a very tight
time-frame back in 1957.
It's located at...
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.7b.html
and at...
http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/ocr.7c.html
Respectfully,
Jerry Cohen
Author: Oberg/Cooper rebuttals
Website: http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/
UFOmind: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/c/cohen/
E-mail: " Jerry Cohen" <rjc...@li.net>
P.S. Further information concerning McDonald can be found at:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/aaas1.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -