It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. 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.[2]
An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced OOFO) is here defined as the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something seen in the sky (or an object thought to be capable of flight but seen when landed on the earth) which the observer could not identify as having an ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it to police, to government officials, to the press, or perhaps to a representative of a private organization devoted to the study of such objects. [6]
Originally posted by fls13
reply to post by Xtraeme
Excellent point about the stone wall naysayers contrasted with the embrace of the dark matter theory.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab8e6367782b.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba23d59e842a.png[/atsimg]
Table 2 summarizes the quality distribution of the same sightings as categorized in Table 1. Of prime importance is the fact that the better the quality of the sightings, the more likely to be an Unknown and the less likely to be listed as Insufficient Information. These results are precisely what one would expect if the Unknowns were fundamentally different from those reports in the astronomical, balloon, aircraft, or other categories and also completely contradict the oft made statement that “There are no interesting UFO sightings that are reliable and no reliable sightings that are interesting” (Ref. 2). The fundamental question raised by these data is “If the Unknowns are not aircraft, balloons, astronomical, or miscellaneous, or even the ones for which there was insufficient data, then just what are they?”
The first question to ask in attempting to determine the identity of the Unknowns is “Is there any difference between the characteristics of the Unknowns as described by witnesses and the characteristics of the Knowns? If on the average the two groups are similar, then one might be justified in concluding that the Unknowns are just “missed” knowns. Several different chi-square statistical analyses were conducted to check this aspect. The characteristics included were size, shape, color, speed, duration of observation, and brightness.
Very unfortunately, maneuverability was not one of the characteristics included in the chi-square test, though it is certainly one of the more distinguishing characteristics of the Unknowns as compared to the Knowns. Many attempts were made to load the comparison by, for example, including the “insufficient data” cases and the “probable” knowns or by deleting the astronomical sightings (which had an excess of green objects) in the color comparisons. The results consistently showed that the probability that the Unknowns were just missed knowns was less than 1%! This point cannot be stressed too strongly: Unknowns are not the poorly reported sightings, are not the ones for which there is insufficient data for a professional investigator to identify and are clearly and distinctly different from the Knowns. (source)
Originally posted by RokNinja
I totaly agree with you on this, any investigation needs to be thorughly planed and preformed in an unbias way to find what specific individual realy are rather than proving a specific theory.
I'd also be interested in hereing any theorys you have on methods for screening/identifing legitamite contact/abduction accounts.
The study conducted by the Condon group could not find a direction for any specific study. But if a valid line of scientific research could be found, it should be encouraged. A shotgun approach to research is not science and it is never fruitful. You can't just say, "Let's study UFO's."
Some readers may think that we have now wandered into a contradiction. Earlier we said that we do not think study of UFO reports is likely to be a fruitful direction of scientific advance; now we have just said that persons with good ideas for specific studies in this field should be supported. This is no contradiction. Although we conclude after nearly two years of intensive study, that we do not see any fruitful lines of advance from the study of UFO reports, we believe that any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported.
In spite of their own beliefs, the authors of the report agree that they could be incorrect and that valid avenues of research should be pursued. No proposed study should be rejected simply because it involves UFO's (nor should it be accepted on that basis).
Therefore we think that all of the agencies of the federal government, and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to consider UFO research proposals along with the others submitted to them on an open-minded, unprejudiced basis. While we do not think at present that anything worthwhile is likely to come of such research each individual case ought to be carefully considered on its own merits.
We find that there are important areas of atmospheric optics, including radio wave propagation, and of atmospheric electricity in which present knowledge is quite incomplete. These topics came to our attention in connection with the interpretation of some UFO reports, but they are also of fundamental scientific interest, and they are relevant to practical problems related to the improvement of safety of military and civilian flying.
It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
Originally posted by The Killah29
This is why parapsychology shouldn't be a psudo-science. It would be alot more helpful.
The question [of Paranormal subjects] is one of accuracy not of honesty.
Originally posted by Phage
A nice presentation. The Condon report does not say that nothing can be gained by the study of UFOs.
The study conducted by the Condon group could not find a direction for any specific study. But if a valid line of scientific research could be found, it should be encouraged. A shotgun approach to research is not science and it is never fruitful. You can't just say, "Let's study UFO's."
Some readers may think that we have now wandered into a contradiction. Earlier we said that we do not think study of UFO reports is likely to be a fruitful direction of scientific advance; now we have just said that persons with good ideas for specific studies in this field should be supported. This is no contradiction. Although we conclude after nearly two years of intensive study, that we do not see any fruitful lines of advance from the study of UFO reports, we believe that any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
I was shocked reading through the CIA's FOIA archive to find that there were a number of incidents, that are on the record, supporting the notion that the concept of remote viewing is actually a very real thing.
You dont need scientific B.S when you have corroberating eyewitnesses.