My point was that data should be published with the correct errors. If the errors are large then they are large, but they should be properly calculated and included with the data.
We only have the summary report – not the original full report. Neither do we have the film that was taken using the Cinetheodolites… Of course that leads one to wonder why these have not been publically released…
especially if the official line on this case is that no information was gained. Why not then release the original report and the films and settle the matter once and for all?
Of course this goes to the heart of “conspiracy theories” and questions concerning whether there exists a government cover-up. This is a topic that has not been formally discussed in this thread – but there does exist some documentary information to inform us. Apart from the elephant in the room – that is that most official investigative reports have included a statement in conclusion to the effect that UFOs represent no threat to national security (eg; the Robertson Panel), yet UFO documents remain classified to this day, with many FOI requests being rejected
on the grounds of national security!
Stating the obvious aside, official secrecy can be traced back to project Grudge and the 1949 SAC memo to the FBI which noted that, on the subject of “Flying Saucers”:
Thus began an official secrecy policy. So what could the public expect from its government in the way of explanation and information about UFOs? A Canadian Joint Intelligence Committee Memorandum from G.S. Austin, Director of Air Intelligence August 4, 1950 tells us:
“The present USAF policy is to play down the subject, investigating only when considered necessary by the area commander without any special arrangements for reporting or investigation. It seems that a similar policy on our part would be wise and that it would be undesirable to produce a special questionnaire or make any arrangements for investigation since this would tend to give publicity to the matter. It is suggested therefore that sighting reports should not be solicited…”
Further, the 1953 Robertson Panel recommended:
”That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired…” (
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm)
Of course the Condon (1966) saw things a little differently:
Such a blatant failure to recognise the facts of the matter are somewhat staggering. Perhaps Condon kept his eyes closed throughout his investigation? Or was there another reason? Of course the (1966) Low memo provides the rationale for Condon:
“…the possibility that such things as UFOs exist. It is not respectable to give serious consideration to such a possibility … one would have to go so far as to consider the possibility that saucers, if some of the observations are verified, behave according to a set of physical laws unknown to us. The simple act of admitting these possibilities just as possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would loose more in prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain…”
“Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of 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 nonbelievers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.”
So basically Condon was operating under the considerations of not wanting to admit the possibility of UFOs on the grounds of “losing prestige” and that the “trick” would be to merely “appear” objective while actually having already come to the conclusion that there is nothing to UFOs. Condon actually admitted this:
In January 1967, Condon stated in a lecture that,
“It is my inclination right now to recommend that the Government get out of this business. My attitude right now is that there's nothing to it.” He added
“but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year...” (
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/science_research.pdf) So much for objectivity.
Thus when Condon concluded in his official report:
” 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.” (
http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-i.htm)
We should of course take this with as large a grain of salt as we can manage – we
should be suspicious – especially considering 29% of cases examined in Condon remain unexplained to this day!
So we have secrecy and denial as official policy. Now we can add in the ridicule and the circle will be complete. Hoyt notes:
”The Arnold sighting was crucial for the development of the context of UFO sightings in the United States. The two words, “flying saucer,” set the tone for the unexplained sightings that followed; they provided a useful and easily accessible label for the unexplained phenomenon, and, unfortunately, established the giggle factor from the very beginning.
Initially, press accounts were neutral. Reporters stated literally what people said they had seen. But as the reports of sightings continued to pour in, and no physical evidence surfaced as proof, the press began to ridicule the phenomena. By the end of July 1947, newspaper reporters generally automatically placed anyone who had seen something strange in the sky in the crackpot category (Jacobs 1975, p. 32). Arnold himself became the subject of public ridicule. “If I saw a ten-story building flying through the air,” he said later of his experiences, “I would never say a word about it.” (Jacobs 1975, p. 35) An Air Force investigator privately noted in mid-July that Arnold was “practically a moron in the eyes of the majority of the population of the United
States.” (Bloecher 1967, pp. 1–11)” (
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
The effects of the official secrecy and denial and of media ridicule are lamentable – as Hynek (in:
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/science_research.pdf) points out in reference to 1982 Hudson Valley Boomerang (
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc680.htm):
”It would appear that we really have TWO astounding stories, rather than just one... different but related... and equally incomprehensible: the story of the low-flying luminous Boomerang (in itself which could rank high in the annals of science fiction... if it were science fiction!) and the second, a totally unaccountable dereliction of duty (and there seems to be no other word for it), a complete indifference to accountability.
It was a malady which appeared to plunge all who encountered it, EXCEPT the witnesses, into a deadly stupor. Such a malady, or perhaps a virulent virus of apathy and indifference to duty, could immobilize cities and a whole country. Of course, we don't know what the Boomerang was really about, for:
-- the Police and other law enforcement officers were derelict and failed in their duty to assist the many who called [in] fear and danger, as well as in awe and wonder.
-- the FAA utterly failed to be concerned for air safety, flight rules, navigation lights, when told that some utterly strange and possibly menacing object was cruising close over streets and houses.
-- the Military was derelict by not attending to public safety and matters of National Defense (the country could have been subtly invaded!)
-- the Scientists failed to uphold their "Hippocratic" oath of science: they were derelict in following the quest [of] an outstanding mystery.
-- the media, well, where were they? Truly derelict. Always avid news hounds, rushing to their typewriters or microphones to rush the news to the world (good, bad and trivial), but where were they? Hardly any of the 50 States heard the Boomerang story.
Why? Utterly indifferent and apathetic? If so, why?
Of the two stories, that of the Boomerang is by far the more directly told. Bizarre and fantastic though it may be (and is) it merely needs competent retelling. The facts are on record. From the hundreds of cassette tapes in the thousands of statements made by witnesses, the Boomerang is a matter of record. But the second story, well, that is another matter.”
The above cited documentary information represents merely the tip of the iceberg in documentary evidence concerning official secrecy and denial and the climate of “ridicule and fear” that has built up around the topic of UFOs. To this day the US government holds UFO files under secrecy and denies any involvement in the study of UFOs. The media still tends toward ridicule as a first response – but that seems to be slowly changing – at least we can all live in hope. Of course the first step in change is to recognise the problem. Once people recognise and acknowledge that an official policy of secrecy and denial does exist, then that will represent the first step toward change.
