1969 11 00 Icarus - Vol 11 No 3 - James E McDonald

Magazine Overview This document consists of book reviews discussing "The Condon Report, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," published in 1969. The reviews, written by J. E. McDonald and referencing a panel conclusion, critically analyze the Condon Report's methodology, findings, and endorsement by the National Academy of Sciences. The reviews are presented across pages 443-447 of a publication titled "BOOK REVIEWS."

Review of the Condon Report

Panel Conclusion The panel, chaired by Gerald M. Clemence, found the Condon Report to be a creditable effort to apply scientific techniques to the UFO problem. While acknowledging that some UFO sightings remain unexplained, the panel concluded that there is no reason to attribute them to extraterrestrial sources without more convincing evidence. They suggested that studying UFOs in general is not a promising way to expand scientific understanding and that the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations is the least likely explanation based on current knowledge. The panel recommended that no high priority be given to UFO investigations based on past data.

J. E. McDonald's Critique

J. E. McDonald offers a strong critique of the Condon Report, arguing that it fails to provide adequate scientific arguments to support its conclusions. His critique is based on months of checking specific cases and over two years of personal interviews with witnesses.

Salient Weaknesses Identified by McDonald:

1. Limited Case Sample: The Report analyzes only about 90 cases out of thousands on record in the United States, representing less than 1% of available reports.
2. Focus on Trivial Cases: The Report fails to concentrate on truly puzzling reports from highly credible witnesses, instead analyzing a mixture heavily weighted with trivial cases.
3. Omission of Outstanding Cases: Many outstanding UFO reports on record are omitted, including cases like Levelland, Texas (Nov. 2, 1957) and Redlands, California (Feb. 4, 1968), as well as historically important cases like Eastern Airlines (July 24, 1948) and Fukuoka, Japan (Oct. 15, 1948).
4. Inadequate Analysis: In many discussed cases, the level of analysis and thoroughness are woefully inadequate, citing examples like Lakenheath, England (Aug. 13, 1956) and Beverly, Massachusetts (April 22, 1966).
5. Deficient Case Facts: The description of basic facts is seriously deficient in many instances, such as for Haneda AFB (Aug. 5, 1952) and Joplin, Mo. (Jan. 13, 1967).
6. Uncontacted Witnesses: Key witnesses were not contacted in several significant cases where unsatisfactory explanations were proposed, such as Beverly, Massachusetts, and Kirtland AFB.
7. Unexplained Cases with Uninterviewed Witnesses: In cases the Report concedes as unexplained, key witnesses whom McDonald easily contacted were not interviewed by the Colorado group.
8. Omission of Details: Exact dates, geographic locales, and witness names are omitted from many cases, hindering independent investigation and assessment.
9. Scientifically Weak Argumentation: The Report's case analyses contain scientifically weak or specious argumentation.
10. Significant 'Unexplained' Category: Despite the report's overall conclusion, McDonald notes that over 30 of the approximately 90 cases considered are left in the "Unexplained" category, questioning the director's conclusion that further study is not justified.
11. Irrelevant Padding: The Report contains a large amount of non-relevant padding, giving an impression of scope but not directly illuminating specific puzzling UFO cases.
12. Redeeming Features: Despite the criticisms, McDonald acknowledges some good subsections like photocases and instrumentation suggestions, and notes impressive individual cases like Falcon Lake, Manitoba (May 20, 1967).

Detailed Case Analysis: Haneda AFB

McDonald provides a detailed critique of the Haneda AFB case (August 5-6, 1956, or 1952), which the Condon Report attempts to explain as an optical effect related to the star Capella. McDonald argues that the Report omits crucial details from the original Air Force intelligence reports, such as the tower-control airmen's description of the object's intensity and behavior, and the fact that its intensity suggested an "aircraft with landing lights on." He highlights that the object exhibited sudden disappearances and rapid altitude changes, inconsistent with Capella. Furthermore, McDonald points out that independent observers from Tachikawa AFB saw the object in a different direction than Capella, contradicting the Report's explanation. He also criticizes the Report's use of "diffraction" and "Raman brightening" as superficial explanations and notes the discrepancy in the object's reported brightness and angular diameter compared to what would be expected from Capella.

Radar Data and F-94 Encounter

McDonald further scrutinizes the Haneda AFB case by examining the radar data. He states that the USAF radar station at Shiroi tracked an unknown target moving in orbit over Tokyo Bay. An F-94B jet was scrambled, and its radarman reported picking up a contact at a specific bearing and range, which was rapidly moving. McDonald asserts that the Condon Report incorrectly states it's unclear if the GCI radar tracked the target, contradicting intelligence files that show the F-94 radarman's testimony of tracking the target. He argues that the close correspondence between the Shiroi GCI vector and the F-94's radar contact location, along with the target's orbital movements, hovering, and speed variations (estimated between 100-150 knots and possibly up to 250-300 knots), makes the "anomalous propagation" explanation offered by the Condon Report absurd.

Review of the Condon Report by E. P. Dutton & Co.

This section provides a summary of the Condon Report's background and conclusions from a different perspective, likely from the publisher's or a more neutral reviewer's standpoint. It notes that UFOs became a national issue in 1966, leading to a $2 million grant for a scientific study led by Dr. Edward U. Condon at the University of Colorado. The study aimed to determine if UFOs were spaceships from beyond the solar system. The report, spanning nearly 1000 pages, concluded that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge" and that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified." This conclusion is presented as potentially enraging to UFO enthusiasts.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is a critical examination of the Condon Report and its scientific validity. The reviews express skepticism towards the report's conclusions and methodology, particularly highlighting its perceived superficiality, omissions, and inadequate analysis of key UFO cases. The editorial stance, as represented by the critical reviews, is that the Condon Report, despite its official endorsement, fails to adequately address the UFO phenomenon and may have prematurely dismissed the need for further scientific inquiry. The reviews advocate for a more rigorous and comprehensive approach to studying UFOs, emphasizing the importance of credible witness testimony and detailed case analysis.