1969 11 00 Icarus - Vol 11 No 3 - National Academy of Sciences Panel

Magazine Overview This document contains book reviews from a publication, specifically focusing on "The Condon Report, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" by E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1969. The reviews span pages 440-443 and discuss the findings and methodology of the Condon Report, as well as the broader scientific inquiry into UFO phenomena.

Review of The Condon Report

The review begins by highlighting that Dr. McDonald emphasized that puzzling things are seen by people from all walks of life and under various conditions, and that many incidents remain unexplained. The reviewer notes two points often missed in discussions: the subjective nature of the experience of seeing, including psychological effects of training and conditioning, and the diverse nature of unexplained events, which tend to be lumped together without considering specific causal hypotheses.

The reviewer expresses skepticism about the idea that an expensively mounted scientific program will produce adequate evidence for a solution, given that these phenomena have appeared for centuries. Dr. McDonald himself noted the scarcity of valid UFO photos and the inexplicable nature of certain physical effects like sonic booms.

The review then details the preparation and charge of the review panel, which was appointed in late 1968 to assess the University of Colorado's study. The panel's charge was to evaluate the scope, methodology, and findings of the University's report. They also familiarized themselves with other scientific publications and reports on UFOs.

Scope of the Study The University of Colorado study, which commenced in October 1966 and lasted about two years, included case studies of 59 UFO reports, a chapter on UFOs in history, UFO study programs in foreign countries, and UFOs reported in the 20 years preceding the study. It also covered perceptual problems, psychological aspects of UFO reports, optics, radar, sonic booms, atmospheric electricity, balloons, instrumentation, and statistical analyses. The panel found the scope of the study to be adequate for its purpose.

Methodology of the Study The study primarily involved field investigations of UFO reports, usually conducted by teams of a physical scientist and a psychologist. Investigations typically consisted of interviews with the reporters, and field trips were made for reports less than a year old. Materials and conditions amenable to laboratory approaches were also investigated, such as alleged UFO parts and UFO photography. The reviewer noted that nearly all cases could be classified into categories like pranks, hoaxes, naive interpretations, or misinterpretations, with a few exceptions left unexplained. The reviewer found the methodology and approach to be well chosen in accordance with accepted standards of scientific investigation.

Findings of the Study The study concluded that about 90 percent of all UFO reports are plausibly related to ordinary phenomena. It also found that little has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge, and that further extensive study of UFO sightings is not justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby. The report also addressed official secrecy on UFOs, finding no basis for the contention that the subject is shrouded in official secrecy. It found no evidence that UFO sightings represent a defense hazard, and noted that Air Force officers have repeatedly concluded that UFO reports do not constitute any threat to national security. Regarding future UFO sightings, the report recommended that the federal government handle these in its normal surveillance operations without need for special units. The study found no basis for setting up a major new agency for the scientific study of UFOs. However, it suggested that specific research topics, such as important areas of atmospheric optics and atmospheric electricity, may warrant consideration due to their fundamental scientific interest and relevance to practical problems. The report also noted that UFO reports and beliefs are of interest to social scientists and communications specialists, and that scientists with adequate training and credentials who propose specific research should be supported.

Panel Conclusion The review panel unanimously concluded that the Condon Report was a creditable effort to apply scientific techniques to the UFO problem. They acknowledged that some UFO sightings remain unexplained but found no reason to attribute them to an extraterrestrial source without more convincing evidence. The panel noted the difficulty of applying scientific methods to transient sightings and suggested that while further study of particular aspects might be useful, a general study of UFOs is not a promising way to expand scientific understanding. The least likely explanation for UFOs, according to the panel, is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings.

The review also mentions other scientists' views, including Dr. Donald H. Menzel, who concluded that UFO sightings do not require any assumption of extraterrestrial intelligences, and Mr. Stanton T. Friedman, who strongly believes the Earth has been visited by intelligently controlled extraterrestrial vehicles. Dr. Leo Sprinkle expressed interest in the psychological study of the field and described himself as an "unwilling believer."

Editorial Stance The reviewer advocates for removing the subject of UFOs from an area of ridicule and disdain, and from the realm of visionary enthusiasts, placing it instead in its proper perspective as an unemotional recording of interesting phenomena. Scientists are urged to keep an open mind and consider new data impartially. The overall picture, derived from numerous incidents, is considered more reliable than any single incident.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring themes in this review are the scientific investigation of UFOs, the methodology and findings of major reports like the Condon Report, and the debate surrounding the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The editorial stance, as expressed by the reviewer Peter M. Millman, is one of balanced scientific inquiry, urging objectivity, the avoidance of ridicule, and the consideration of all data without jumping to conclusions, particularly the extraterrestrial explanation. The review emphasizes that while some UFO phenomena remain unexplained, the scientific community should approach the subject with rigor and avoid sensationalism.