Documents / FOIA release
This CIA release, approved in 2001, is a set of reprinted science press articles about UFOs from 1969 to 1971. A Science News piece reports that UFO sightings fell after the 1968 Condon report and gives NICAP and academic views on why. An AIAA UFO Subcommittee review calls the Condon report the most scientific study so far but argues that its hard core of unexplained cases justifies further study. A Science editorial by Hudson Hoagland argues that more UFO investigation would be wasteful.
Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.
To gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO problem, the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA, from its inception in 1967, decided to place specific, well-defined questions to UFO experts of high scientific qualifications but strongly divergent views. Surprisingly, the factual answers the Subcommittee obtained in a series of interesting interviews were strikingly similar. Differences occurred in certain quantitative estimates and in the degree of emphasis, but not in principle.
It was at the next step where the views began to diverge: subjective judgment as to the scientific significance of the problem and the need to pursue and explore it. Obviously, such opinion depends on the criteria applied by the individual, and much of the discord appears to be due to a lack of analysis of these criteria. It is at this stage where guesses and speculations creep into the discussion and lead to controversy.
In the opinion of the UFO Subcommittee, such speculations are entirely premature and no position is absolutely defensible at this point in time. This applies specifically to statements that the extraterrestrial hypothesis ("ETH") is "the least probable" or "the least unprobable" explanation (National Academy of Sciences, Review of the "Condon Report"; James E. McDonald's statements). There is no scientific basis for assessing such probabilities at this time.
The Subcommittee was greatly perturbed by the paucity of thorough scientific and technological analysis applied to practically all observations before the Condon study. The few, often courageous, efforts by individuals to come to grips with this problem should be viewed more from an aspect of focusing attention on the problem rather than of solving it, since there is little doubt that it takes more than a personal effort to investigate fully a problem of such complexity.
In the opinion of the committee, the Colorado University study, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," (the "Condon Report," Bantam Books, New York, 1969) at this time represents the most scientifically oriented investigation published on the UFO problem. Attacks directed against the study seem to overlook the almost insurmountable difficulties which a short-time one shot project of this type faces: building up the multidisciplinary, unbiased talent, accumulating practical experience, collecting hard information, sorting out the signal from the noise, applying the best analytical methods, and writing and editing a report in less than two years.
To understand the Condon report, which is difficult to read, due in part to its organization, one must study the bulk of the report. It is not enough to read summaries, such as those by Sullivan and by Condon, or summaries of summaries, on which the vast majority of readers and news media seem to rely. 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. For example the optical/radar chapter contains the following statement on the Lakenheath case (1956): The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out.
On Colorado Springs case (1967):
In view of the meteorological situation, it would seem that AP (anomalous propagation) was rather unlikely. Besides, what is the probability that an AP return would appear only once and at that time appear to excute a perfect practice ILS approach.
Condon's own conclusions have been widely misquoted. He says:
"...Scientists are no respecters of authority. Our conclusion that study of UFO reports is not likely to advance science will not be uncritically accepted by them. Nor should it be, nor do we wish it to be. For scientists, it is our hope that the detailed analytical presentation of what we were able to do, and of what we were unable to do, will assist them in deciding whether or not they agree with our conclusions. Our hope is that the details of this report will help other scientists in seeing what the problems are and the difficulties of coping with them.
"If they agree with our conclusions, they will turn their valuable attention and talents elsewhere. If they disagree, it will be because our report has helped them reach a clear picture of wherein existing studies are faulty or incomplete and thereby will have stimulated ideas for more accurate studies. If they do get such ideas and can formulate them clearly, we have no doubt that support will be forthcoming to carry on with such clearly defined, specific studies. We think that such ideas for work should be supported.
"... Therefore we think that all of the agencies of the federal government, and the private foundations as well, ought to be
an open-minded, unprejudiced 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."
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.
In reviewing the material accumulated to date, the Subcommittee found an exceedingly low signal-to-noise ratio, as illustrated by the statistics of the Air Force's Project "Bluebook" quoted in the University of Colorado study, which showed 3.3% unidentified observations (253 out of 7741 available at that time*). This figure is frequently disputed, but its order of magnitude (5%) appears to be correct, taking all available reports into account. The fact that the Condon study itself arrives at a much higher percentage of unexplained cases—namely, at about 30% (35 out of 117)—is primarily due to the preselection of specific cases for investigation. The precise figure is hard to assess, for the Condon report does not lend itself easily to this type of analysis, the same cases being treated often in different sections and under different identifications. (*The final figures, according to our information, appear to be 701 out of 12,618 or 5.5%.)
It has been variously estimated that the reported cases, approximately 20,000, represent only 5 to 15% of the total observations, since most observers either do not go to the trouble of an official report or fear ridicule. In turn, various polls suggest that 3 to 5% of the U.S. population claim to have seen UFOs. It follows, then, that the available reports which can be classified as "unidentified" represent a very small percentage of all UFO sightings on the one hand, but not a negligible number of observations on the other.
It is interesting that, contrary to public opinion, the estimated percentage of "hoaxes" is likewise small FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. The text was read from the page images by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word. 9 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.