UFOLOGY: "We've Lost Almost All Our Ability To Influence ... The Scientific Community ..."

Tweet

What's to lose at this point?

By Billy Cox De Void 7-24-13

Don Berliner, former NICAP investigator and director of the mostly dormant Fund For UFO Research, has some ideas on how to jump-start a sober re-evaluation of The Great Taboo that doesn't involve new research: Declassify all the Project Blue Book files (yes, some are still censored more than 40 years later), assemble a team of independent credentialed scientists to render evaluations on the true unknowns, case by case, and air them out in the contemporary public arena. No doubt the effort would run into some bucks, but the cases would come from official government files. And non-government panelists wouldn't likely shy away from criticizing the slipshod work of another federal agency.

De Void rarely features guest bloggers, but at 84, Berliner merits some space here, meager though it be. So here's Don:

     For the past several decades, the private UFO community hasn't moved one inch closer to solving the greatest mystery of the past century. Even worse, we've lost almost all our ability to influence the opinions of members of the scientific community, the mainstream media and most of the governments of the world.

We reached our peak in the mid-1960's when the 14,000-member National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), under the inspired leadership of Donald Keyhoe and Richard Hall, had established highly effective relationships with those vital elements of our society. The media, in particular, regularly came to NICAP for facts and guidance. Today, with two national organizations each collecting more than 500 UFO/UAP reports a month, it would be hard to find a reporter who has any clue that such is happening, with the result being that the public has no idea that strange craft are still being seen.

NICAP's facts were produced by the highly qualified and experienced members of carefully selected investigative sub-committees who went out into the field to find out what had actually happened, not to reinforce anyone's preconceived opinions nor to add to anyone's collection of allegedly unexplained events.

There are changes that can be made to improve the situation:

1. Get rid of "UFO", which to most people means "flying saucer," and that means alien spacecraft. In other words, "UFO" is a conclusion, when it should be no more than a starting point. A replacement is ready and waiting: "UAP," meaning Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. Many of the scientists in the private UFO community have been using this for years.

2. Get rid of "Ufology" and "Ufologist," which strongly imply that the collecting of information and the subsequent study of it constitute a science. It will remain no more than a hobby until we make drastic changes in the way we view the subject and our own involvement.

3. While we're at it, let's add "sincere" to our list of words to be dropped. The category of people most needing to be considered sincere is "con-artist." And while we certainly aren't suggesting that more than an occasional sighting witness deserves to be in that group, using it to describe someone who hasn't been subjected to an extensive background investigation is passing judgement on the basis of emotion, rather than logic.

4. Stress the need for field investigators having advanced educations and/or practical experience in appropriate scientific fields. By including hobbyists and "saucer fans," we are actively discouraging the participation of the very people we need most. Imagine a curious scientist joining a field investigation, only to find himself working alongside someone who is in serious danger of flunking freshman chemistry. The scientist won't be back, while the marginal student will.

5. Forget about trying to influence the U.S. Congress as a way to force the release of a large quantity of withheld government information. Members of Congress lack both the will and the motivation needed to risk their jobs over an issue that promises little beyond embarrassment. Let's face it: one of the easiest ways to replace a sitting member is to accuse him of believing in flying saucers. He or she may be able to withstand personal attacks based on financial or sexual misconduct, but not on something viewed by peers as suggesting a serious lack of common sense.

6. Start using the Hynek "Strangeness/Credibility Scale" to pin-point UFO/UAP reports having the potential for adding to the accumulated knowledge of UFOs/UAPs. Cramming filing cabinets with sightings of meandering night lights amounts to nothing more than wasting time on trivia. It is the quality of cases that will eventually pay off, not the quantity.

7. Perhaps the biggest step we can take in the near-term is to stop behaving like the mystery has been solved and all that remains is to lay out the evidence for the ignorant masses to absorb. In fact, the UFO mystery has not been solved, nor will it be until we have acquired proof, not merely debatable evidence. Just because we haven't been able to come up with logical, non-alien explanations for hundreds of baffling cases doesn't mean that there aren't any. Maybe we have overlooked something subtle that could change the picture

Just what will constitute proof?

A. Clear, sharp photographs that can be scientifically verified and which show sufficient detail so that they could not possibly be of anything terrestrial.

B. Government documents that can be scientifically confirmed as original (not photocopies), and which include specific information whose authenticity can be checked.

C. Physical evidence such as obviously unusual debris from one or more crashes, whose origins can be traced with confidence and whose properties do not resemble anything found on Earth. The professional scientists or scientific organizations doing the analyses must be willing to sign their names to any reports.

We aren't going to get any of the above by sending out "saucer fans" to interview people who claim to have seen funny lights. We have to start taking the mystery as a serious challenge, and not as entertainment or a way to attract attention to ourselves.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

"American Scientific Ufology is Dead!"

Personality Driven Ufology: The Id vs. The Phenomenon

Goodbye Ufology, Hello Truth

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Goverment is Secretly Probing UFOs | UFO CHRONICLE – 1977

Tweet

By The National Enquirer
7-12-1977

See Also:

CIA Veteran Claims Knowledge of Roswell-Alien Cover-up

What Does the CIA Know and When Did It Know It about Roswell?

Declassified CIA Docs "Proves . . . Intense Interest in UFO Sightings in Other Parts of The World . . ."

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Science and UFOs: Part 2 — Occam’s Rusty Razor

Tweet

By Robert Hastings www.ufohastings.com 3-23-12

     As noted in Part 1, the late Dr. James E. McDonald—who held the title “Senior Physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics” at the University of Arizona—also holds the distinction of being one of the very few scientists to actually study the UFO phenomenon. In a prepared statement before the U.S. Congress’ House Committee on Science and Astronautics, delivered on July 29, 1968, McDonald said this:

“From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern. That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.”¹

McDonald arrived at that opinion after several authorized visits to the U.S. Air Force’s UFO Project Blue Book to review its files. Indignant at what he discovered, he wrote, “There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of [UFOs] years ago, yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Blue Book investigators and their consultants.”²

McDonald’s full statement before Congress may be found in the U.S. Congressional Record, as well as on the Internet. While acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings undoubtedly had prosaic explanations, and that a great many questions about the phenomenon remained unanswered, McDonald succinctly summarized his conclusions regarding the most credible of the unexplained cases: “My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed ‘surveillance.’”³

Frequently, UFO skeptics—scientists and laypersons alike—invoke Occam’s Razor to support their position that there are far more likely, prosaic explanations for the UFO phenomenon than the extraterrestrial spaceship theory. Unlike McDonald, these persons have never studied UFOs and are, therefore, offering uninformed opinions—whether they choose to recognize this fact or not.

In essence, the principle of Occam’s Razor states that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation for an unexplained phenomenon is probably the correct one. In other words, conventional explanations—natural or man-made phenomena—undoubtedly account for all UFO sightings.

But is the basic premise of simplicity-as-truth always valid, or is it flawed? Consider, for example, gravity. The explanation for it offered by Isaac Newton—whereby physical objects possess an attractive property, proportional to their mass, that draws them toward one another—appears simple, straightforward, and fits the observable facts. Indeed, the English scientist’s revolutionary theory, experimentally validated, provided an explanation of gravity which endured unchallenged for over two hundred years. Then along came Albert Einstein.

In the early 20th Century, Einstein created his own, one-man scientific revolution by introducing the twin theories of Special and General Relativity. Among other things, General Relativity postulates that space and time are an inextricably interconnected entity which is distorted, or curved, by the presence of physical objects. In fact, said Einstein, gravity is actually a function of curved space-time. Hence, Newton’s apple did not fall to the ground because of the attractive property of the Earth. Rather, the Earth created a curved depression in space-time and the apple merely took the path of least resistance by sliding down into it. Oh, by the way, Einstein also found that gravity bends light.

One un-simple aspect of Special Relativity is the dilation of time, whereby it moves faster or slower, depending on whether it is being measured on a stationary or moving timepiece. Moreover, says Einstein, moving objects actually shorten in length in the direction they are traveling. And, last but not least, matter and energy are variations of the same thing and, sometimes, a handful of matter can release enough energy to destroy a city.

All of this is simple stuff, right? Old Occam would get it, wouldn’t he? Well, maybe not.

After an extensive evaluation of experimental data, science now considers Einstein’s explanation of gravity to be the correct one. But is it the simplest one, as Occam’s Razor dictates it should be? Is it less complicated, more reasonable and straightforward than Newton’s?

No, it is not. In fact, the bizarre, mind-bending, often paradoxical principles advanced by the two relativistic theories still elude the intellectual grasp of most of humanity one hundred years after they were published. Nevertheless, physicists have long considered Einstein’s ideas to be perceptive and accurate assessments of cosmological order and function. That said, those ideas certainly can not—by any stretch of the imagination—be described as simple, common sense answers to important questions.

If the concepts advanced by Einstein’s theories do not effectively challenge the simplicity-as-truth premise of Occam’s Razor, or sufficiently affront common sense, then consider what the other pillar of 20th Century science, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, proposes.

One tenet, called the Uncertainty Principle, asserts that the more we know about a particle’s location in space, the less we can know about its velocity. Conversely, the more we know about any given particle’s velocity—by measuring it—the less we can know about its location. Another Quantum principle states that certain attributes of particles, including position, velocity, direction of movement, and spin, can not even be defined until they are observed. Before that moment, any given particle exists in what is termed a “superposition of states.” In other words, its very nature can not be said to exist until it has first been examined. Finally, Quantum Theory maintains that light—composed of waves of photons—exists as a “wave-particle duality”, in which it is neither one nor the other but nevertheless exhibits certain properties of both.

Physicists Gary and Kenny Felder write:

Quantum mechanics says that…the photon really, genuinely, and importantly, does not have a specific location until we measure one. [This] doesn’t seem to make sense. But another school of thought says, why should it make sense? After all, humans evolved in a world of ‘normal’ objects, and we developed a facility called ‘intuition’ that helped us survive in that world, by helping us predict the effects of our actions. That physical intuition was, and is, a great asset. But perhaps it shouldn’t be too surprising that it becomes a liability when we try to apply it to areas that we didn’t evolve for. Quantum mechanical laws generally only have measurable effects when applied to things that are too small to see, so we never evolved an understanding of them, so they seem bizarre. In fact, at roughly the same time that quantum mechanics first began to suggest that very small things defy our intuition, Einstein was proposing his special theory of relativity which shows that very fast things defy our intuition; and then his general theory of relativity, which concerns the odd behavior of very big things.⁴

In other words, taking into account both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, much of what early 21st Century scientists consider to be factual, that is, “real”, is not simple or straightforward at all. In fact, it’s downright counter-intuitive. Despite this state of affairs, the vast majority of UFO skeptics have yet to consider the possibility that alien visitation might also occur in a counter-intuitive manner, for example, by the utilization of higher-dimensional space—hyperspace—to effectively by-pass Einstein’s light-speed limitation. If ever there was a counter-intuitive theory, hyperspace is it. Nevertheless this concept is rapidly gaining support among theorists whose work involves deciphering cosmic architecture and operation.

So, instead of acknowledging the general lack of simplicity and, in fact, the predominance of counter-intuitive high-strangeness inherent in our current paradigm, UFO skeptics and debunkers ironically resort to quoting Occam’s Law as if it were an unassailable pillar of wisdom, applicable to all questions involving UFOs.

As noted above, with rare exceptions, these persons have undertaken no research on the UFO phenomenon and, therefore, their reaction to the UFO topic is almost always a smoke screen—recognized or not—to hide the fact that they have not done their homework, and have no idea what they are talking about. Ostensibly, this type of evasive and disingenuous behavior would be abhorrent someone who strives to be scientific—meaning basing one’s opinions on the evidence—nevertheless, it is continuously and pervasively exhibited by UFO skeptics, laypersons and professional scientists alike.

Granted, simplistic sloganeering—Long Live Occam!—does require far less effort than actually doing research, but does it bring one any closer to the facts? One is tempted to conclude that by not investigating the UFO phenomenon—prior to making unequivocal pronouncements about it—many skeptics are attempting to avoid the potential threat to their own worldview, which might arise should they actually research the subject and unexpectedly discover that things are not as previously assumed.

Yup, whether one is intellectually timid, or just plain pompous, it’s simply much easier and safer to presuppose that some things, like aliens visiting Earth, can not possibly be true. Clearly, practicing science by slogan has the added benefit of not having to step outside one’s comfort zone.

Observations Trump Assumptions

Furthermore, there exists another fundamental flaw with Occam’s Razor: The integrity of the assumptions underlying the premise of what is “simple” or “likely”. As regards UFO sightings, a skeptic will assert that an atmospheric mirage or exotic military aircraft is the simpler, more likely explanation for what appeared to the observer to be an alien spaceship. But these “explanations” almost always have less to do with the specific aspects of the sighting itself—the observed phenomenon—than they do with what the skeptic presumes to be the remote prospect of interplanetary travel. Since the probability of such a thing is near zero, the reasoning goes, so is the likelihood that an alien spaceship was actually sighted by a human observer.

In other words, this approach to “analyzing” UFO sightings has far less to do with observation than it does with preconceived notions, dressed-up as rational skepticism. Consequently, the simplest-explanation strategy as applied to UFO sightings is almost always fallacious because, although the debunkers would have you believe otherwise, an unacknowledged, subjective point-of-view usually taints the basic premise of their argument.

The important point here is that this presumption, flawed or not, is the basis for the skeptic’s assessment of the event, rather than the facts of the case themselves.

Moreover, as researcher Joe Nyman astutely notes, “Scientists, when confronted with the unexplainable, will often appeal to Occam’s Razor, or the Principle of Parsimony, to reduce the level of exotic explanation, but often overlook the next step, that the simpler explanation is really a hypothesis that must be tested. If the simpler hypothesis does not fit the facts, it too must be discarded.”⁵


Although this necessary testing is almost never undertaken, most UFO skeptics are nevertheless inclined to believe that their merely having offered an alternate explanation for a given sighting is sufficient. Although that “simpler” proposal is completely unproved, their confident demeanor suggests that they truly believe that they have all but solved the case.

Dr. Robert Kirshner of Harvard’s Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory has also questioned the presumed wisdom underlying the simple-is-correct premise when investigating or, at least, making pronouncements about reality. Commenting upon the approach of those astronomers and cosmologists who are tempted to summarize the nature of universe in one straightforward, elegant theory, Kirshner cautions, “...the aesthetic approach, the simplest thing that you can think of, is not always a guide to the truth. Sometimes, you just have to go look—and you discover that the universe is actually much richer and more complicated than your imagination. In fact, it’s always more complicated than you imagined.”⁶


Clearly, Occam’s Razor—as a definitive, irrefutable guide for gauging the nature of unexplained phenomena, including UFOs—leaves a lot to be desired.

I sent my book’s “Occam’s Rusty Razor” excerpt to Dr. Henry H. Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Science Studies and Dean Emeritus of Arts and Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, for his critique. Bauer had previously submitted an abstract to the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) titled “The Two-Edged Sword of Skepticism: Occam’s Razor and Occam’s Lobotomy”. He offered these comments:

I find nothing major to quarrel with. I agree thoroughly with these strong points: That the data should be determinative; that the Razor should be a hypothesis, maybe a first guess, but no more than that; that judging what is “simple” depends on prior knowledge, on “common sense”, which changes over time; that our common sense is formed by experience of events at the human scale. One might emphasize that with the much-maligned saying that ‘There’s the known unknown and also the unknown unknown, [which is] totally unforeseeable.’⁷

My own, 39-year UFO research career is summarized in my 600-page book UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites, which is available at my website, www.ufohastings.com. (Unless you want to pay scalper-rates for it on Amazon.)

On September 27, 2010, I co-hosted the UFOs and Nukes press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. which CNN streamed live:

As I readily acknowledged in my book, my research material does not qualify as scientific data. The testimony offered by my ex-military sources is simply anecdotal evidence, often reluctantly revealed, by dozens of highly-reliable individuals whose professional responsibilities had inadvertently and unexpectedly placed them in a position to experience the UFO phenomenon within an environment inaccessible to most persons. Those who have not worked with nuclear weapons—which is to say the vast majority of us—have obviously had no opportunity to witness UFO activity in such a highly-restricted setting.

Therefore, it seems to me, whether one is a scientist or a layperson, we should all at least listen to what these persons have to say. To automatically dismiss their now-numerous, detailed accounts of UFO encounters at nuclear weapons sites as mere fantasies, or fabrications, is to suggest that those who held the fate of the entire planet in their hands during the Cold War were dangerously demented or otherwise untrustworthy. Surely, this was not the case.

References:

1. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968
2. [Tucson] Daily Citizen, March 1, 1967
3. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968
4. Felder, Gary and Kenny. “Quantum Mechanics: The Young Double-Slit Experiment”, self-published, 1998
5. Nyman, Joseph, MUFON UFO Journal, issue information temporarily unavailable
6. Dr. Robert Kirshner to Robert Hastings, confirmation of quotation in personal communication, June 2, 2008
7. Dr. Henry Bauer to Robert Hastings, R., personal communication, March 10, 2012

. . . More


See Also:

Science and UFOs: Part 1 — The Condon Committee Con Job

Remembering Dr. James E. McDonald

Scientists and UFOs

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE    ABOUT DONATIONS

↑Grab this Headline Animator

Science and UFOs: Part 1—The Condon Committee Con Job

Tweet

By Robert Hastings www.ufohastings.com 3-13-12

     The late Dr. James E. McDonald—who held the title “Senior Physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics” at the University of Arizona—is one of the very few scientists to actually study the UFO phenomenon. In a prepared statement before the U.S. Congress’ House Committee on Science and Astronautics, delivered on July 29, 1968, McDonald said this:

“From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern. That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.” 1

And how did McDonald arrive at that opinion? After several authorized, extended visits to the U.S. Air Force’s UFO Project Blue Book, to review its files, he wrote, “There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of [UFOs] years ago, yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Blue Book investigators and their consultants.” 2

McDonald’s full statement before Congress may be found in the U.S. Congressional Record, as well as on the Internet. While acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings undoubtedly had prosaic explanations, and that a great many questions about the phenomenon remained unanswered, McDonald succinctly summarized his conclusions regarding the most credible of the unexplained cases: “My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed ‘surveillance.’” 3

Smoke Screen

McDonald was not the only one to conclude that UFOs represented a genuine mystery worthy of rigorous investigation. Although most scientists today are completely unaware of this fact, in the late 1960s, the first U.S. government-sponsored scientific study of the UFO phenomenon—informally known as the Condon Committee—actually found persuasive evidence to support the contention that UFOs are something other than manmade or natural phenomena.

However, as I shall discuss shortly, this startling finding was effectively masked in the project’s final report through a spectacularly successful sleight-of-hand by the study’s own director, physicist Dr. Edward Condon, whose blatantly anti-UFO bias was a already matter-of-record well before the report was released in late 1968.

Ironically, for four decades, countless scientists skeptical of UFOs have pointed to the official findings of the Condon Committee as justification for ignoring the phenomenon as a legitimate subject for study. However, despite their own sincerity, because of their unfamiliarity with the facts, these persons simply do not understand that they have been thoroughly duped.

Informed persons—those familiar with Condon’s often scandalous behavior during his association with the study—frequently argue about whether the UFO project’s flawed final report was merely the result of Condon’s naked prejudice toward his subject, or the result of some as-yet undocumented government subterfuge in which he participated. Regardless, the negative spin Condon put on the committee’s findings smacks of whitewash, a fact bemoaned by a number of the project’s own scientists, following the publication of the final report.

How and why did this travesty occur? Equally important, why did the national media slavishly portray the study as an objective scientific inquiry?

The Condon Committee, formally known as the University of Colorado UFO Project, was undertaken at the Air Force’s request and funded by a $500,000 grant it provided. From 1966 to 1968, a panel of scientists from various disciplines evaluated 91 reported UFO sightings—some drawn from confidential Air Force files, others from published sources. While the investigations themselves—with a few notable exceptions—were fairly rigorous and objective, project director Condon repeatedly displayed distinctly unscientific behavior in relation to his task, while the project’s coordinator, Robert Low, was caught privately enunciating what was, at the very least, an arguably questionable approach to organizing the supposedly objective investigation.

In a memorandum dated August 9, 1966, Low had written, in part, “Our study would be conducted almost entirely by non-believers who, though they couldn’t possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of thick evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of non-believers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.” 4

Moreover, notes researcher Jerome Clark, “Low also suggested that if the study focused less on ‘the physical reality of the saucer’ and more on the ‘psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs’, then ‘the scientific community would get the message.’” 5

Low’s defenders, including leading UFO debunker Phillip Klass, have tried to explain away Low’s seemingly incriminating proposal for the project’s composition and aims. They argue that Low was simply attempting to present the project in the most benign terms possible to dubious faculty members at the University of Colorado, in a bid to soften their resistance to participating in the controversial UFO study.

Regardless, one of the Condon Committee’s concerned staff members, psychologist Dr. David R. Saunders, later leaked Low’s memorandum to Donald Keyhoe, director of the civilian National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), who had long advocated an end to government secrecy on UFOs. Keyhoe subsequently shared the contents of the memo with Dr. McDonald. According to Jerome Clark, “The Trick Memo confirmed McDonald’s worst suspicions about the Committee. In response, he wrote a seven page letter to Condon, explaining point by point, his problems, frustration and disappointment with the Committee’s shortcomings.” 6

Condon was infuriated by the letter and called a meeting of the project’s staff to attempt to learn how McDonald had obtained an internal project memorandum. Saunders freely admitted that it was he who had sent the memo to Keyhoe. According to Saunders, Condon then called him “disloyal” and reportedly said, “For an act like that you deserve to be ruined professionally.” At this, Saunders reports, he responded by saying that his loyalty lay with the American people, while Condon’s own loyalty seemed to be to the Air Force.7 Saunders was subsequently fired from the project by Condon for his actions, together with another staffer, Dr. Norman Levine, who had also been involved in the memo’s unauthorized release.

Condon had already revealed his own suspect attitude toward the supposedly scientific study, well before the furor over the Low memorandum erupted. According to Clark, “In late January, 1967, [NICAP executives Donald Keyhoe and Richard Hall] gave Saunders a clipping from The Elmira Star-Gazette, dated January 26. Condon was quoted as saying [during a lecture] that he thought the government should not study UFOs because the subject was nonsense, adding, ‘but I’m not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year.’

Saunders was stunned. He asked if Condon could have been misquoted, but Keyhoe reported that several NICAP members had been present when Condon delivered his lecture; one of them had resigned from NICAP in protest, arguing that the Condon Committee was nothing more than pretense.”

If this were not enough, it is now known that one of the committee’s members, psychologist Michael Wertheimer, had openly argued against any consideration of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) well before the project concluded its work, a position openly supported by project administrator, Robert Low. In other words, even before the data-gathering phase of the study was completed, some key members of the committee—including Condon himself—had already reached the de facto conclusion that UFOs could not possibly be alien spacecraft. Obviously, this rush to judgment effectively precluded an objective analysis of the facts.

To further illustrate this point, after the various case investigations had concluded, one committee investigator, astronomer William K. Hartman, had actually written that some of the unsolved cases he examined were in fact consistent with the extraterrestrial hypothesis of UFOs. When Condon read this conclusion in Hartman’s draft report, he wrote, “Good God!” and crossed out the passage. Given that it was Hartman, not Condon, who had investigated the cases in question, this negative editorial spin by the project director was at least presumptuous, if not downright deceptive.

The UFO project’s shortcomings finally came to light when an exposé by journalist John Fuller was published in the May 1968 issue of LOOK magazine. Titled, “Flying Saucer Fiasco”, the article laid bare the various questionable actions and attitudes exhibited by some of the Condon Committee’s leading members.8 The resulting widespread public indignation was predictable and even some scientists began to question the UFO project’s objectivity and purpose.

Researcher Dr. David Jacobs notes, “When the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) covered the ongoing Committee controversy in an issue of its official journal Science, Condon first promised to grant an interview apparently in the hopes of offering his side of the conflict. Shortly thereafter, however, Science editor Daniel S. Greenberg reported that Condon announced it would be ‘inappropriate for Science to touch the matter, withdrew his offer of cooperation, and proceeded to enunciate high-sounding principles in support of his new-found belief that Science should not [review] the subject until after the publication if his report.’” 9

A few other scientists, notably astronomer Frank Drake—founder of the Search for Extraterrestrial Life (SETI) movement and an outspoken critic of the hypothesis that UFOs are alien spacecraft—expressed deep doubts about the Condon Committee’s overall objectivity. At one point, Drake fired off a letter to the National Academy of Sciences, in which he argued that the UFO study had been “tainted” and should, therefore, be discredited.

But there was another type of fallout from the exposé in LOOK magazine, as David Jacobs further notes: “The Fuller article even helped inspire Congressional hearings. Representative J. Edward Roush [of Indiana] spoke on the House floor, arguing that Fuller’s article brought up ‘grave doubts about as to the scientific profundity and objectivity of the project’. In a Denver Post interview, Roush suggested that the Trick Memo proved that the Air Force had indeed been dictating the Project’s direction and conclusions.” 10

The committee’s final report was released in the fall of 1968. In the introduction, titled “Conclusions and Recommendations”, Condon wrote: “Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”11

Consequently, despite the evidence amassed—over 25% of the cases investigated by the committee were judged to involve “unknown” craft or other unexplained phenomena—the study’s final report, written by Condon himself, stated that there existed no basis for continued Air Force investigation of the UFO phenomenon. If one had read only Condon’s introduction, but not the actual report itself, one might reasonably conclude that the idea of UFOs, as an objective reality unto themselves, had been irrefutably disproved. However, a careful examination of the report as a whole yields an entirely different impression.

In his 1999 book, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence, astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock examined the failings of the Condon Committee and their consequences. One review of the book correctly notes, “[The Condon Committee] report has clouded all attempts at legitimate UFO research since its release. Much of the public, including the scientific community and the press, erroneously assumes that this project represents a serious, in-depth look into the issues.”12

The review continues, “Sturrock assiduously dissects the Condon Report and makes it clear that the study is scientifically flawed. In fact, anyone who actually reads the report carefully will be surprised to find that Edward Condon, who personally wrote the Summary and Conclusions, did not investigate any of the cases. Rather it was his staff that did the legwork. That is why [Condon’s summary] is internally inconsistent with the body of the document, [which supports] some UFO cases, while the summary does not.”13

In the book, Dr. Sturrock writes about the scientific community’s sharply-divided response to Condon’s final report, noting that “critical reviews came from scientists who had actually carried out research in the UFO area, while the laudatory reviews came from scientists who had not carried out such research.”14

In other words, those self-satisfied individuals who had always dismissed UFOs, without so much as glancing at the data, were quite pleased by Condon’s claim that the subject deserved to be ignored by science—because that was already their own position. On the other hand, persons such as James McDonald and J. Allen Hynek, who had actually investigated the phenomenon, were outraged by Condon’s misleading statements. Hynek criticized Condon’s final report as “singularly slanted”, noting that it had “avoided mentioning that there was embedded within the bowels of the report a remaining mystery; that the committee had been unable to furnish adequate explanations for more than a quarter of the cases examined.”15

Unfortunately, due to the length of the Condon Committee report—which ran nearly 1000 pages—very few reporters actually read it before wrapping up their stories to meet publishing deadlines. Consequently, most media accounts covering the report’s release almost invariably focused on Condon’s easily-accessible, negatively-slanted conclusions, to the exclusion of the study’s many positive findings about the UFO reality.

Influential columnists, including The New York Times’ science editor, Walter Sullivan, applauded Condon’s disingenuous statements as the last word on the subject and urged the Air Force to move onto more important things. Only later, long after their stories had been published, did a few inquisitive reporters actually get around to reading the UFO project members’ individual reports which, in many cases, clearly pointed to the presence of an unexplained phenomenon worthy of further scientific study.

But the damage had been done. Because the initial media hoopla surrounding the release of the report had painted such a dismissive picture of UFOs, it regrettably reinforced most scientists’ negative assumptions and erroneous perceptions about the phenomenon. Whatever his motives, Edward Condon had pulled off a wonderfully slick sales job—boldly dismissing all UFO sightings as the misidentification of known, natural phenomena or manmade aircraft, as well as a few hoaxes—even though his own study had concluded otherwise.

In response to the report’s official conclusions, most scientists—led astray by both Condon’s misleading remarks and the supposedly astute pundits in the national media, who should have recognized duplicity disguised as science—nodded knowingly and with great satisfaction when they read that Dr. Condon had finally killed the UFOs. Betrayed by a debunker—and their own biases—they relegated the phenomenon to the proverbial intellectual trash heap, and washed their hands of the whole matter.

Meanwhile, as this controversy was unfolding, out in the vast prairies surrounding America’s nuclear missile bases, the UFO phenomenon—apparently unaware of its supposed non-existence—continued to assert itself, often in dramatic fashion. As now-declassified U.S. Air Force documents confirm, sightings by Air Force security personnel of disc-shaped objects at ICBM sites were ongoing, if unpredictable, sometimes punctuated by sudden, unexplainable disruptions of the missiles’ functionality, concurrent with the presence of the UFOs.

Following many of these disturbing incidents, witness statements were taken and national security non-disclosure forms were signed, whereupon the incidents became non-events, known only to a few Office of Special Investigations (OSI) agents, missile wing commanders, and their superiors at Strategic Air Command Headquarters and the Pentagon.

Given the extreme secrecy surrounding these developments, the members of the Condon Committee, scientists in general, and the public as a whole, were completely unaware of them and would remain so for decades to come. Indeed, even today, this information will be news to the great majority of American citizens, not to mention others living all over the planet.

Nevertheless, the facts are slowly emerging. On September 27, 2010, seven U.S. Air Force veterans spoke at my “UFOs and Nukes” press conference and divulged their involvement in a few of the still-classified UFO incidents at ICBM sites. CNN streamed the event live and the full-length video may be viewed here:

As I readily acknowledged in my book, UFOs and Nukes, my research material does not qualify as scientific data. The testimony offered by my ex-military sources is simply anecdotal evidence, often reluctantly revealed, by dozens of highly-reliable individuals whose professional responsibilities had inadvertently and unexpectedly placed them in a position to experience the UFO phenomenon within an environment inaccessible to most persons. Those who have not worked with nuclear weapons—which is to say the vast majority of us—have obviously had no opportunity to witness UFO activity in such a highly-restricted setting.

Therefore, it seems to me, whether one is a scientist or a layperson, we should all at least listen to what these persons have to say. To automatically dismiss their now-numerous, detailed accounts of UFO encounters at nuclear weapons sites as mere fantasies, or fabrications, is to suggest that those who held the fate of the entire planet in their hands during the Cold War were dangerously demented or otherwise untrustworthy. Surely, this was not the case.


References:

1. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968
2. [Tucson] Daily Citizen, March 1, 1967
3. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Saunders, Dr. David R. UFOs: Yes! Signet, 1968. p. 189
8. LOOK. “Flying Saucer Fiasco”, May 14, 1968
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Sturrock, Dr. Peter A. The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence, Aspect, 1999
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Hynek, Dr. J. Allen. The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry, Ballentine Books, 1972. p. 217

. . . More


See Also:

Remembering Dr. James E. McDonald

Scientists and UFOs

The Science of Ufology

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE    ABOUT DONATIONS

↑Grab this Headline Animator

Richard H. Hall: ". . . .His Life Became a Quest to Delve into The Unending, Mysterious Universe and Find Life Beyond Earth

'Dean' of UFO Studies Devoted Life to Seeking Others Beyond Earth

By Rick Rojas
The Washington Post
8-23-09

     Richard H. Hall was never abducted by aliens and never saw a UFO with his own eyes. Yet his life became a quest to delve into the unending, mysterious universe and find life beyond Earth.

"I am, in the legitimate sense, in the philosophical sense, a skeptic," Mr. Hall said in a 1997 CNN interview. "I think there is evidence of something. I am critical about it. I am open-minded, [and] I am trying to find out."

Mr. Hall, who was 78 when he died July 17 at his home in Brentwood of colon cancer, was "the last of a breed," said John B. Carlson, a University of Maryland astronomer. Carlson said that Mr. Hall's generation of UFO enthusiasts approached questions of the universe using the scientific method, not as believers in an intergalactic phantasm. "He was scientific, careful," he said. "He was a researcher."

Mr. Hall's pursuit began as a boy growing up near Hartford, Conn., with a simple mention by his mother that she had seen something strange in the night sky.

"Could there be something out there?" he asked himself at the time, according to his friend Susan Swiatek, who is Virginia director for the Mutual UFO Network. The Colorado-based group, of which Mr. Hall was once a board member, is an organization of UFO enthusiasts and ufologists -- those who study unidentified flying objects.

As a young man, Mr. Hall indeed thought there was something out there, and that prompted his lifelong investigation into who piloted UFOs and why they would come to Earth.

Mr. Hall became a leading figure in the field of ufology and wrote widely in the subject. He edited the book "The UFO Evidence" (1964) and a second volume in 2001. He also had a stint as a columnist for UFO Magazine and wrote essays for niche publications. And he was a proponent of what's known in ufology jargon as the "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis." He believed that UFOs, in fact, carried alien life-forms in spacecrafts that visited Earth.

Mr. Hall started his career as a student of extraterrestrial life at the beginning of the space race, when the American public was eyeing the heavens and wondering whether anyone else might share our universe. The study of UFOs was in its infancy when he came to Washington in 1958 to work for the new National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), a privately funded organization that sought to persuade the Air Force to investigate UFO sightings. Its director was Donald Keyhoe, a former Marine Corps aviator who wrote such books as "The Flying Saucers Are Real" and became an oft-quoted expert on extraterrestrials.

Mr. Hall wrote of learning about NICAP while studying mathematics at Tulane University in New Orleans. As a scholarship student, his duties included opening, sorting and delivering the mail. Keyhoe had written a letter to the university's "one-man astronomy department" asking for scientific support for the UFO organization. Mr. Hall, a fan of Keyhoe's book, said he immediately offered his services to NICAP after graduating.

Mr. Hall became an assistant to Keyhoe, but life as a ufologist wasn't lucrative. He left the organization in the late 1960s because of his impending marriage, which soon ended in divorce. He worked as an abstracter and editor for the Congressional Information Service in Bethesda, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Columbia Telecommunications and the National Council on Aging.

Mr. Hall continued to write about UFOs and serve with many organizations that investigated UFO sightings and phenomena. The larger scientific community has often dismissed ufology because of a lack of empirical data to support the research. "There are tens of thousands of reports of UFO sightings, but all you need is one good one to prove it," said Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute.

"The bottom line: Ninety percent can be explained as something prosaic," Shostak said. "Ten percent, you don't know what it was, and ufologists say that's the margin in which there are aliens. The fact that we don't know 10 percent is not evidence."

Carlson said his mentor, Mr. Hall, came to be regarded as the "dean of ufology." As a researcher, Mr. Hall looked for evidence to understand what kind of extraterrestrials existed and what their purpose was.

In later years, his reputation suffered a reversal among many younger UFO enthusiasts who wanted to believe the story lines of science fiction to be true, Carlson said.

According to Carlson, Mr. Hall eschewed this growing "ding-a-ling fringe . . . who approach this more as a belief system or a faith."

Those notions, in Mr. Hall's view, diminished the credibility of his writings and research. The younger generation came to regard the "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis" as an old school of thought. The younger factions dismissed his hypothesis as though he believed the world was flat.

Outside his studies of UFOs, Mr. Hall had a keen interest in female soldiers, particularly those who fought incognito during the Civil War, and wrote several books and papers about them.

But his greatest influence as a researcher came from dedicating his life to the search for the unknown.

"Ninety-seven percent of the nibbles a fisherman feels on his line may be caused by his line snagging on rocks or seaweed, or by wave motion," Mr. Hall wrote in a 1966 paper. "This doesn't prove there are no fish in the ocean."

More . . .

See Also:

Veteran Ufologist Richard Hall Succumbs To Cancer!

A Tribute to Richard H. Hall
(Dec 25, 1930 - July 17, 2009)

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE


HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE

ABOUT DONATIONS

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

A Candle in The Window

By Billy Cox
De Void
7-27-09

     In 1966, with Michigan eyewitnesses hounding House Minority Leader Gerald Ford for explanations, it looked like this UFO thing might bust wide open on Capitol Hill. As Missouri congressman Durwald Hall’s unhinged rant indicated during a brief hearing on April 5 of that year, measured perspectives were falling out of fashion.

Declaring that acid-dropping Americans “are almost synonymous with the number of space sightings we have today,” Hall added that people who reported UFOs reflected “a decrease in the morals and the fiber of those who would subject themselves to hallucinatory influences in the first place.”

The dude didn’t make any sense, but what the hell, it was Congress. Next thing you knew, the Air Force contracted the University of Colorado to get the 800-pound ape off its back. UC obliged, declared UFOs beneath the dignity of science, and handed the USAF an escape clause to walk away from its public UFO study, Project Blue Book, in 1969.

But more than Blue Book died 40 years ago. “NICAP folded shortly thereafter,” remembers Don Berliner. “It went on for a little while, but it was over for all intents and purposes.”

Founded in 1956 and reaching peak membership of 14,000 with more than half a dozen full-time employees, the National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena became the largest private UFO study group in the world. One of its most diligent stewards was Richard Hall, who had a curious zest for immersing himself in reams of often dull, numbing, horribly written UFO reports filed by military and civilian eyewitnesses alike.

Exasperated by conspiracy theories and New Age dreck, Hall went on to write his “Reality Check” column for UFO Magazine and co-found the Fund for UFO Research, which financed investigations for more than 20 years into some of the strongest reports. But at the time of his death earlier this month, Hall’s Web site reflected more accessible priorities, such as genealogy, the Civil War, and his own artwork. You had to scroll down to reach the UFO stuff.

“He tried to get out of the field,” says Berliner, who presides over the remains of the Fund, “and he felt his ability to get a good job was hampered somewhat by research that a lot of people considered weird.”

Berliner met Hall when he joined NICAP in Washington in 1962. Pulling 15-hour stretches for up to two weeks at its office in tony Dupont Circle, taking astonishing reports from the likes of airline pilots walking in from National Airport, Berliner recalls that era with a sense of anticipation, like maybe something huge could pop at any moment.

“Well, it was the quality of the evidence,” Berliner says from Alexandria, Va. “Wishful thinking or speculation on what the government knew or didn’t know had no place in our work. Dick, and others, to a lesser degree, established a basis for looking at that evidence scientifically. We just didn’t see how anybody could ignore what we were collecting, especially given the standards we were using.”

At age 79, Berliner notes that he’s six months older than Hall. If you’d told him in 1969 we’d be no closer to solving the riddle than we are today, Berliner would’ve dismissed the idea as outlandish. And even as he states that “there hasn’t been a great increase in the intellectual capacity of congress in 40 years,” Berliner remains an optimist. A breakthrough, he says, is always just a couple of key documents or whistleblowers away.

“I fully expect to be around when that happens,” says Berliner as the NICAP generation passes into history. “I’m not going until that happens. I’m going to lash myself to a chair.”

More . . .

See Also:

Veteran Ufologist Richard Hall Succumbs To Cancer!

A Tribute to Richard H. Hall
(Dec 25, 1930 - July 17, 2009)

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

A Tribute to Richard H. Hall (Dec 25, 1930 - July 17, 2009)

By Larry W. Bryant
ufoview.posterous.com
7-17-09

     A phone call to me this afternoon (July 17, 2009) from UFO researcher Dan Pinchas of Germantown, Md., brought news of the death of one of
ufology's giants: Richard H. Hall, 78, of Brentwood, Md.

For at least a year, I'd known that Dick had been recovering from colon-cancer surgery, but he counseled me not to spread that knowledge. By e-mail several months ago, he'd told me he was doing okay. Now, I learn that he'd been undergoing chemotherapy. He apparently died in his sleep this morning.

Seemingly right up to his last moments, Dick was pursuing his ufological calling, for it's been only several weeks since my receipt of the latest issue of his bi-monthly newsletter Journal of UFO History.

My association and friendship with this consummate scholar date back to November 1957, when I met him for the first time at the Washington, D. C., headquarters of the now-defunct National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). There, as I sauntered into the front office, I spied him with his head down and
eyes focused on a piece of correspondence he intently was typing upon a manual typewriter.

Eventually, Dick became a role model for my own baby steps as a UFO researcher-activist. He not only wrote well and fluently; he also had a keen hand at line drawing. Noted mostly for his seminal two-volume work The UFO Evidence, he also had edited the NICAP newsletter (The UFO Investigator) and some of the organization's special reports. His two books on the subject matter (The Challenge of Unidentified Flying Objects (with Prof. Charles A. Maney - 1961); and Uninvited Guests (1988)) remain collector's items.

His other major contributions to the field derived from his service on the board of directors for the Fund for UFO Research, Inc. At separate periods, he also served as editor of the monthly journal of the Mutual UFO Network, Inc., and as a columnist for the monthly newsstand periodical UFO Magazine. (See my essay about his career at this blog's Item 3.2.)

Besides his UFOlit products, Dick managed to publish a small handbook on raising house plants, plus an overview of the role of women in America's civil war.

Dick Hall's commitment to serious UFO research and his high standard of personal achievement in the field began during his student days at Tulane University, where he majored in philosophy. I take delight in possessing copies of his self-published newsletter from that early period - the UFO Critical Bulletin. Critical thinking (and action), you see, became the hallmark of his scholarship. If anyone deserved
an honorary doctorate in ufology, it certainly was he.

I never could've asked for a better mentor, friend, and colleague in this field. Thank you, again, Sir Richard, for the enriching part you played in this long journey of inquiry, networking, and enlightenment.

Note: At this writing, Dick's blog remains accessible at
http://www.hallrichard.com.

More . . .

See Also:

Veteran Ufologist Richard Hall Succumbs To Cancer!

Veteran Ufologist Richard Hall Reports on NPC UFO Conference

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Veteran Ufologist Richard Hall Succumbs To Cancer!

By Frank Warren
© 7-17-09

     It is with great sadness today that I report the passing of one of Ufology’s icons; Richard (Dick) Hall succumbed to Cancer this morning, he was 78 years old.

Dick was born on December 25, 1930, in Hartford, Connecticut; in 1949, realizing that war was forthcoming, he spent two years with the newly borne Air Force, followed by six years in the Air Force Reserve.

After his service he took odd jobs and moved around a bit, until landing at Tulane University, (New Orleans) in 1954. He initially majored in mathematics and then switched to philosophy.

The hub-bub about Flying Saucers in the early 50's got Dick's attention, and he joined the then recently formed NICAP organization. He would become life long friends with its Director, and another UFO icon, Donald E. Keyhoe.

In 1993 through 1998 Dick would serve as Chairman of the Fund for UFO Research; he was prolific writer, who authored a few books, some which are considered hallmarks to Ufological research, e.g., UFO Evidence, The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-year Report, Uninvited Guests with his latest endeavor being The Journal of UFO History, a monthly periodical detailing the annals of Ufology.

I can say with great authority that many of us held Dick Hall in the highest esteem; his shoes cannot be filled, however, his life's contribution to Ufology will be a permanent record, a fitting legacy for us all.

More . . .

See Also:

Veteran Ufologist Richard Hall Reports on NPC UFO Conference

Richard Hall's Take On The Jennings' Show

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

An Historical Curio re "MJ-12"

By Larry W. Bryant
ufoview.posterous.com
12-18-08

LWB note: Subscribers for the bimonthly "Journal of UFO History (A Publication of the Donald E. Keyhoe Archives)," published-edited by former NICAP assistant director Richard H. Hall ( http://www.hallrichard.com ), have a nostalgic treat on page 11 of the Journal's November-December 2008 issue. It consists of this excerpt from Hall's recent interview with former NICAP staffer Donald Berliner:

Q: I think I know the answer to this, but what is your opinion on the reality or non-reality of the alleged MJ-12 organization?

A: Either there was an MJ-12 as described in the Eisenhower Briefing Document, or there was a similar organization that went under another name/designation . . . or maybe a series of titles. To have ignored the greatest scientific discovery in history and not marshaled our best talent to learn everything possible would have been malfeasance of the worst kind."

That conversation -- with its ageless perspective -- prompts me to publish here the contents of my 2000 public "Petition to Investigate the 'MJ-12' UFO Cover-up," which I'd circulated for three months via the now-defunct service called "petitionpetition.com." Alas, none of the agencies cited ever responded to my snail-mail delivery of the petition (which also had listed as a recipient one Va. U. S. Senator Charles Robb). Had they done so, they probably would've invoked their discretionary power to ignore it. But it certainly does stand as a nagging footnote in the history of the official, worldwide UFO cover-up, no? Here's the petition's text and list of signatories:

TO: Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army (Washington, D.C.);

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy (Washington, D.C.);

Director, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (Washington, D.C.);

Director, U.S. Office of Special Counsel (Washington, D.C.);

Attorney General of the United States (Washington, D.C.)

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: July 22, 2000

(1) With their 169 electronic signatures now entered upon subject petition, citizens from all walks of life -- from homemakers and students to government workers and professional specialists -- are requesting that you take all appropriate action toward fulfilling their plea as expressed in the text of the petition.

(2) Circulated during the period April 21 to July 21, 2000, via the Internet website of http://www.petitionpetition.com, the petition presented the following background information:

The inspectors general of three federal agencies -- the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of the Army, and the Department of Energy -- are continuing to ignore a written request to investigate their agencies' role in the official cover-up of the "UFO/E.T. experience."

This ADMINISTRATIVE petition (as carried by the website of www.petitionpetition.com) sets the stage for a forthcoming "Petition for Writ of Mandamus," to be filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Accordingly, if the IG officials involved persist in stonewalling the formal request to investigate their agencies' role in the UFO cover-up as revealed by certain whistleblower-"leaked" documentation (now posted upon the website of www.majesticdocuments.com), then they'll have to justify their decision not to just the Court of Public Opinion but also to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

This next logical, legal step in the public's growing demand for the full story as to what these agencies know (and when they knew it) about UFO reality centers on the behind-the-scenes conduct of a supersecret panel of top-rated military leaders and scientists selected circa 1947 to analyze, exploit, and conceal certain recovered artifacts of alien-spacecraft origin. Known as Majestic-Twelve, the 12-member panel managed for decades to keep its affairs hidden from public view -- until one or more whistleblowers began to "leak" documentary evidence of those affairs.

As work proceeds to fully evaluate (via technical, literary, political, and forensic means) the content and specific origin of the MJ-12 documents, you now have this opportunity, through your signatures on this petition, to say no to the UFO status quo -- and to remind these agencies that the public has the right to know, and they have a duty to tell.

(3) Here's the text of the petition:

We, the undersigned citizens -- concerned about the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's, the Department of the Army's, and the Department of Energy's having been implicated (by whistleblower-"leaked" documentation) in the official cover-up of the "UFO/E.T. experience" -- do hereby petition our elected and appointed government officials to compel these agencies' inspectors general to cease their stonewalling and to fulfill their statutory duty to investigate (and to report upon) whatever role their agencies have had (and continue to have) in concealing from public view various hard evidence of UFO/E.T. reality.

-- Whereas, each of these IG officials have received -- and have chosen to ignore -- a formal, written request to commission the sought-for investigation;

-- Whereas, this stonewalling contravenes both the spirit of government accountability and the letter-of-the-law as to the IG charter;

-- Whereas, to countenance that stonewalling invites these agencies to perpetuate their decades-old abuse of authority, violation of the public trust, and deliberate evasion of congressional oversight (as revealed by documentation posted upon the website of www.majesticdocuments.com); and -- Whereas, a growing body of UFO-cover-up whistleblowers and other material witnesses are waiting in the wings to testify against that official agency wrongdoing (if given a chance in a court of law or in an open congressional hearing)--

We sign this administrative petition in full expectation that its recipients will exercise, forthrightly and swiftly, their authority toward granting its demand; and should they deny its demand, we encourage the petition's originator to append the electronically signed version to his proposed "Petition for Writ of Mandamus," for filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

(4) On behalf of the petition's signatories, I ask that you keep me regularly and fully informed as to your progress in helping achieve the goal of this petition. Your failure to do so will add that much more substance to the petitioners' quest for judicial review of your agencies' role in the worldwide government cover-up of the UFO/E.T. experience.

(5) Please note that I'm snail-mailing to you a printout of this e-mail-formatted communication so that you may readily process it among
the multiple levels of your agencies.

(6) Here is the list of signatories:

See Signatories . . .

See Also:

Kimball, Smith, Bush and MJ-12

Navy Warrant Officer: "Forrestal Didn't Kill Himself"

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE