1969 11 00 Icarus - Vol 11 No 3 - Hong-Yee Chiu

Magazine Overview

This document consists of book reviews from a publication titled "BOOK REVIEWS," specifically pages 447-450. The primary focus is on the "Condon Report, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," published in 1969. The reviews analyze the report's findings, methodology, and conclusions regarding UFO phenomena.

Review of the Condon Report by J. E. McDonald

J. E. McDonald critically examines a specific case detailed in the Condon Report, involving radar tracking of an unknown object by GCI and an F-94 aircraft. McDonald argues that the "anomalous propagation" explanation offered in the report is "simply absurd," citing the object's horizontal line of sight below the horizon and its sustained tracking by both ground control and the F-94. He notes that the object was described as a "bona fide moving target" with cross-section changes and was observed hovering for extended periods, reaching speeds potentially exceeding the F-94's capabilities. McDonald asserts that the Condon Report is "seriously deficient" in areas essential to its mission and that its negative conclusions were likely rubber-stamped rather than rigorously cross-checked. He believes that while the report's acceptance might be a short-term response due to the limited number of scientists informed about UFOs, it will eventually be seen as "almost incredible" given the scientific challenge posed by UFO phenomena.

Review of the Condon Report (Anonymous)

This review provides a broader overview of the Condon Report. It explains that the study was initiated in 1966 with a $2 million grant to a team at the University of Colorado, led by Dr. Edward U. Condon, to scientifically investigate UFO reports. The study aimed to determine if UFOs were spaceships from beyond the solar system. The review highlights that the study period was two years, allowing for meaningful conclusions without becoming a life career for the team. Dr. Condon's group reportedly "placed aside all prejudices" and adopted a scientific attitude, asking harsh questions to obtain unbiased answers.

The report is described as voluminous, containing nearly 1000 pages and presented in seven sections. The introduction is by Walter Sullivan, a New York Times science editor.

Section I: Presents the main conclusion: "Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge." The report concludes that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." This conclusion is expected to "enrage" those who have made ufology their life study, potentially reducing their chances of receiving support from federal agencies or private foundations.

However, the report does not preclude further respectable UFO research, stating that any scientist with adequate training and credentials who proposes a "clearly defined specific proposal for study should be supported." An example of such research is Project Ozma.

Section II: Discusses the UFO problem in scientific terms, covering the origin of the Colorado project, the definition of UFO, and the sources of reports. It evaluates the quality of UFO sightings, noting that fabricated reports were a small fraction and that reporters were generally normal individuals. The review mentions that prior research by the Air Force and CIA was shrouded in secrecy, contributing to the UFO mystery and the growth of the "UFO cult."

The review also addresses the role of newspapers in propagating UFO news, often correcting erroneous impressions less prominently than the original stories. An example is given of UFO reports near Castle Rock, Colorado, in January 1968, which were later explained as a polyethylene hot-air balloon, though a Florida man continued to circulate the original reports without the explanation.

Section III: Details the scientific procedures used in the UFO program. It discusses the need to screen UFO reports, with NICAP discarding unsubstantiated claims and the Air Force neglecting reports of mere lights. Photographic evidence is discussed, with the report concluding that no submitted photographs met the criterion of being taken by multiple individuals independently. The quality of UFO photographs is often poor, blurred, or fabrications. The review notes that many spectacular natural phenomena, such as lenticular clouds, can be mistaken for UFOs. Direct physical "evidence" like scraps of metal are analyzed using neutron activation analysis and mass spectroscopy, consistently showing terrestrial origins. Indirect evidence, such as burned markings, is analyzed using gas chromatography, often revealing common hydrocarbons. The review also mentions reports of strong radiation or magnetic fields, which are often explained by conventional means.

Section IV: Cases studied are presented, with the reviewer impressed by the thoroughness and lack of bias in the study procedure.

Section VI: Explores possible explanations for UFO sightings, highlighting how nature can deceive the eye and how inorganic phenomena can appear alive under light.

Section VII: Includes miscellaneous items, such as "The Natural Philosophy of Flying Saucers" by R. V. Jones, and a form for reporting UFOs.

Review by Hong-Yee Chiu

Hong-Yee Chiu offers a postscript to the reviews, focusing on the astronomical implications of UFO visits. Chiu argues that if intelligent beings from outer space have visited Earth in spaceships, then a significant fraction of heavy elements from the galaxy must be found in these spaceships. He finds it improbable that Earth would be the most desired star to visit among billions. Chiu calculates that to cover all stars in the galaxy annually at light velocity, at least 10^12 spaceships would be dispatched per year. Over the galaxy's history, this would amount to 10^22 spaceships. Even with a modest spaceship weight, the total mass would reach five solar masses, or 5000 solar masses if all sightings are true starships. This would require processing the material of 500,000 stars, which Chiu deems "sheer impossibility."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical evaluation of UFO phenomena and the scientific community's response, particularly through the Condon Report. The reviews collectively suggest that while UFOs capture public imagination, rigorous scientific investigation has not yielded evidence supporting the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The Condon Report is presented as a landmark effort to apply scientific scrutiny, concluding that ufology is a pseudo-science and further study is not scientifically warranted. The editorial stance, as reflected in these reviews, appears to favor scientific skepticism and evidence-based conclusions, while acknowledging the persistent public interest and the need for open-mindedness towards legitimate scientific inquiry.