The Condon Report

[Paul Kimball]

As per my discussion with Lance Moody in the April 4th program thread...

Discuss.

 

[dyingsun]

I have nothing to really add here and probably shouldn't even post, but I as a 'saucer fanboy' side wirh Mr. Kimball here and would love the discussion to go on. Now excuse me, 'saucer fanboys' need their daily fix too.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hi Lance,

My remarks at that conference are based on an extensive study of the Condon Report and the events surrounding its creation. Further, I am not a "UFO supporter" - you may be able to get away with labeling someone else with that meaningless tag (and the baggage that you seem to think it carries), but not me, so if we're going to continue this discussion let's get that straight from the get go.

My stance has always been clear: some UFO cases are worthy of serious scientific study because, as Michio Kaku has said, we may learn something from them. I can cite any number of respected scientists who concur, so it's not as if the entire scientific establishment (whatever that is) rejects the UFO phenomenon as something of interest.

As for the Condon Report's contention that UFOs are of no military or defence significance, that is contradicted by the records after the Report was released, when militaries around the world continued to investigate UFO sightings. They just did it under the radar, so to speak - which was precisely what the Condon Report was all about in the first place.

As an example, on the record, I cite the 1976 Tehran case. It doesn't matter what you or I think of that case; what matters is what the government thought (remember - the Condon Report said there was no defence significance).

Starting at 4:06 of this clip:

If you can square this with Condon's conclusions, I'm more than happy to listen.

Finally, while I often disagree with Stan Friedman about things, one thing I do agree with him on is that there are many different aspects to scientific inquiry, as opposed to the monolithic method that you put forward - which, I will admit, must seem convenient to you, being a "UFO opponent" and all.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hi Paul,
I am up late converting Red footage so here is a rather half-ass response.

Yes, the supporter/opponent tags are imprecise but it is hard to talk about these things.
You think there may be something paranormal to UFO's, yes?
I think that this is unlikely.
I am open to whatever shorthand terms you can suggest.

I think there may be something paranormal to UFOs - key word being may. There are cases that nobody has been able to explain. That intrigues me. But I am definitely an agnostic... and I don't just limit "paranormal" to spaceships from Zeta Reticuli, or wherever. I also recognize that it may all be explainable in prosaic, terrestrial terms... or perhaps the "paranormal" aspect to it is just something our science doesn't understand yet. If you had asked someone in 1850 to explain many of the things we know today, they may well have called it "paranormal."

The US government's continued (but VERY lazy and casual) interest in UFO's did continue but its very limited nature suggests a LACK of any perceived threat and your clip above (which presents every contention as a matter of fact, something you support in the film only with interviews from the usual suspects: well-known UFO Supporters/Hucksters--and I use the terms advisedly here) shows that another government asked the US for help in the investigation. But what else did our government do after that?

That's the problem with focusing on the "government." First, it's not a monolithic entity - agencies within the government are always competing with each other. USAF with the Navy, CIA with NSA with FBI... and those are just the ones we know about. The truth is that we have no idea, really, what level of official interest the "government" takes in the UFO phenomenon at any given time. The one thing we can be certain of - given cases like Tehran - is that they take more interest in it than was "recommended" in the Condon Report.

This is a case that I am not too familiar with (I mainly focus on the early cases). But are things really as you present them with NO contrary opinion or ideas as to the nature of this sighting?

Of course, there are always people like the late Phil Klass who will float the most ridiculous of explanations in the hopes it will stick (my all-time favourite being the USAF dismissing Kelly Johnson et al's sighting in 1953 as a lenticular cloud), but to my knowledge none has stuck with Tehran. Further, I wasn't using Tehran to point to something that could prove the paranormal nature of UFOs (although I think it does show something anomalous worth looking into), but rather that post-Condon government agencies still too UFOs quite seriously. In that respect, the DIA report is entirely legit. I have the documents lying around somewhere in a filing box.

At any rate, I must have been unclear in my main point. Let's say that all of your best evidence cases were from real flying saucers or whatever.

I don't ever say that, but moving on...

And we decided that we are gonna spend some money investigating them. I will ignore for the moment that the buffs will never accept ANY negative thoughts whatsoever (something that I think you gloss over above) so most real scientists, regardless of expertise are right out.

That's like saying that because Holocaust deniers won't accept the Holocaust, we shouldn't study the Holocaust. I have no interest in what fringe elements in any inquiry have to say about it. I'm interested in the inquiry itself.

As for spending money, that should come from the private sector, of course. I don't want tax dollars spent investigating UFOs when people need hospital beds. But surely some university somewhere could spare a modest amount - from their NCAA basketball program, for example - that might yield some worthwhile results, one way or another.

Spend a LOT of money for me and prove that saucers exist.

Alas, Lance, like many disbelievers you are, in your own way, just as bad as the believers that you decry. I don't want to prove that saucers exist. I just want to investigate a mystery. What harm in that?

How would one go about proving a phenomena that always seems to do just the thing that doesn't allow its study?

Again, a red herring. There are plenty of cases that could be studied, including ones in the Blue Book files that have never been properly investigated (although time is running out on them).

I would suggest the cold and ever-present hands of time have already proved the non-existence. The evidence NEVER gets better.

And I would suggest that you are unfamiliar with the evidence (like the Tehran case) for the reality of the UFO phenomenon... which is different than saying the reality of ET, or whatever.

I think I know how you feel about abductions. Here is a supposed paranormal event that would be very easy to prove or disprove and yet the idiots who lead the movement can't even manage to think about the means to do so (Hint to Hopkins/Jacobs: set a video camera, you dumb-asses!).
And you also saw the fuzzy thinking that entered the discussion here on 9/11 "Truth".
I see UFO belief in much the same way as these other ideas. I am flabbergasted that someone smart like you doesn't see things the same way (but I am not saying you are absolutely wrong, who knows maybe I am?).

What flabbergasts me is that someone who seems smart like you cares. Honestly, if you think there's nothing to it all, why not just move on to something else?

Again, the believers and the disbelievers are just two sides of the same coin to me.

But let me also say that most of the folks here on these boards think everything is already proven to their rather undemanding satisfaction. For them, it is CASE CLOSED.

As it was for Condon on the other end of the stick. And his reasoning was just as unscientific.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hi Paul,

It doesn't look like you are willing to admit that any point I make has any validity. And, of course, I may be just as stubborn. And we both see ourselves as beacons of good thinking.

I am surprised at how you sidestep what should be a rather troubling problem. Again, let's say that we spent a lot of money studying the Iranian case above. And in that study we found that all the facts as you present them are true.

So. What else can we learn from the event? In other words, no matter how carefully we look into the case, how can that get us closer to finding an answer to the UFO question? I am not just being rhetorical here, I really wonder what you can envision coming from further study into individual cases.

Hey, nice shot on me not being familiar with the evidence! I had, of course, heard of the Iranian case but I never looked into it--something I tried to be honest about above.

Is your knowledge of the UFO evidence all encompassing? If so, then I humbly ask you to bear with my childlike grasping.

I know a hell of a lot about the first 20 years of cases, enough to probably make me something like a low rent expert on the evidence. I do admit that I tend to form my judgement on what I know of the evidence (and more casual knowledge of what came later). Is it your contention that the only cases that are "good" came after 1970?

After years of discussing cases with believers, I can tell you that the most common tactic of argumentation is the "but what about this one..." approach. This usually comes after I point out severe flaws in one of their cherished cases--they always seem to move on to another one. And they are always unfazed by the flaws!

Arthur C. Clarke said that the very proliferation of cases is what convinces him that there is nothing to the UFO story. Unlike a real scientific phenomena, the evidence never coalesces into a viable theory.

But his knowledge of science is probably just as flawed as mine.

Lance

Lance,

I just don't see you as being interested in a reasonable discussion about the UFO phenomenon.

You bemoan people who point to one or two particular cases, which is an old tactic of Phil Klass - who always failed to address those cases, and provide an explanation. Instead, you resort to ad hominems, and lump everyone into the "believer" camp (which you did again with me, by clumsy implication, in your last post).

I have mentioned one case - the Tehran case - which refutes your contention that after the Condon Report the government did not take the UFO phenomenon seriously. It is one of the cases most well-known by UFO researchers... and yet you seem to be unaware of the details. If you're going to discuss the phenomenon intelligently, you should broaden your knowledge base, and not just fixate, as you seem to, on the Roswell case.

You have provided no answer for Tehran - you just sidestepped it. So what else is there to talk about? I'm all for a discussion. To me, it seems like all that you want to do is proclaim, and argue. Those are two different things.

And no, I never said that all the good cases came after 1970. Let me add the classic 1957 RB47 encounter for you to consider.

All that the proponents of the proposition that the UFO phenomenon is a subject worthy of serious study have to do is show one case - just one - that can't be explained. I can show many more than that.

And that, my friend, is why the Condon Report was unscientific, and a whitewash.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hi Paul,

I made a long reply but lost it (like an idiot).

If you think Phil Klass never addressed cases (sometimes in a devastating and unimpeachable way) then I suggest that it is your knowledge that needs to be broadened.

Let me just say that I think you sidestepped some reasonable questions that I asked in my reply to you (even while accusing me of doing the same). But I am sure that you are comfortable that I am the one uninterested in reasonable discussion.

The logic that a case from the 1970's somehow proves the intentions of a study from the 1960's must be the kind of thing that flies well here.

Lance

Lance,

You consistently misrepresent or ignore what I say. I expected better, because you don't seem to lack intelligence.

I never said that Klass didn't offer perfectly good explanations from time to time. But when he did, it was almost always for cases that were easy to address. Klass enjoyed shooting fish in a barrell. Where he singularly failed was in addressing those cases for which there didn't seem to be an easy explanation. You and he are very similar, in that respect.

And then there's this comment:

The logic that a case from the 1970's somehow proves the intentions of a study from the 1960's must be the kind of thing that flies well here.

Nice try. That type of thing might work with the believer rubes, or the disbeliever rubes, but not me. That wasn't why I mentioned the Tehran case, and you know it.

But I guess that's the kind of lazy thinking that flies well in disbeliever land these days. You and someone like David Rudiak have a lot more in common than I suspect you would be comfortable admitting. It's really quite amusing.

Paul

 

[Ezechiel]

That is really the conclusion of the report, by the way: that further study is not likely to lead to answers

A study in 2010 might lead to more answers than a study in 1967 you might think. The technological advances and detection/analysis tools and methods have improved somewhat ... not to mention the advantage of having all those advanced military spy satellites hovering above us.

and that no military threat is seen.

If you don't have the equipment to properly evaluate or address an issue, its a better idea to close the lid on pandora's intent assessment box. The Condon report is anologous to monkeys throwing a stick in the air trying to hit a sopwith camel.

In the end its all economics (cash is king). The issue, while providing world changing answers could also potentially raise even more questions and cause unexpected and damaging disruption to the world cash machine.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-survive-discovery-of-et-survey-suggests.html

More Roman Catholics believed ET could pose a problem for their faith. Only 8 per cent of the 120 surveyed thought that their individual beliefs would be shaken, but nearly a quarter – 22 per cent – said it could adversely affect their religion. Even more – 30 per cent – thought it could threaten the beliefs of other religious people


If it works don't fix it. IMHO, unless disclosure can be massaged into a form that causes the least disturbance to our economic model and can protect the assets of the wealthy and powerful, we won't see any significant movement in that direction.

At this point in time, I'd be curious to know who is competent to evaluate the full effect of a paradigm shift such as ET disclosure. As a simple model, we all know the outcome of the arrival of Europeans on american soil ... what effect do you think a type 2 civilization, able to neutralize nuclear weapons (Malmstrom), would have on our near type 1 global village

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

An Indian reservation is an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are about 310 Indian reservations in the United States, meaning not all of the country's 550-plus recognized tribes have a reservation — some tribes have more than one reservation, some share reservations, while others have none. In addition, because of past land allotments, leading to some sales to non-Indians, discussed below, some reservations are severely fragmented. Each piece of tribal, individual, and privately held land is a separate enclave. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative and political/legal difficulties.<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP>

I propose that eventual disclosure, if it comes, will amount to a recognition that this entire planet is (and has been for millions of years) a human reservation falling under a type 2 civilization department of interior's bureau of aboriginal affairs. .... think about it, we've been protected and perhaps exploited all these years.

... now that would be a switch LOL