BOOK REVIEWS 443 important areas of atmospheric optics, including aspects of the subject, should prove of value to radio wave propagation, and of atmospheric scholars in many fields. Its analyses and findings electricity in which present knowledge is quite are pertinent and useful in any future assessment incomplete. These topics came to our attention of activity in this field. We concur in the in connection with the interpretation of some recommendation suggesting that no high priority UFO reports, but they are also of fundamental in UFO investigations is warranted by data of scientific interest, and they are relevant to prac- the past two decades. tical problems related to the improvement of We are unanimous in the opinion that this has safety of military and civilian flying. Research been a very creditable effort to apply objectively efforts are being carried out in these areas by the the relevant techniques of science to the solution Department of Defense, the Environmental of the UFO problem. The Report recognizes that Science Services Administration, the National there remain UFO sightings that are not easily Aeronautics and Space Administration, and by explained. The Report does suggest, however, universities and nonprofit research organizations so many reasonable and possible directions in such as the National Center for Atmospheric which an explanation may eventually be found, Research, whose work is sponsored by the that there seems to be no reason to attribute National Science Foundation." them to an extraterrestrial source without evi- The Report also observes (7) that UFO dence that is much more convincing. The Report reports and beliefs are also of interest to "the also shows how difficult it is to apply scientific social scientist and the communications special- methods to the occasional transient sightings ist." In these areas particularly--i.e., (6) and with any chance of success. While further study (7) the study suggests (8) that "scientists with of particular aspects of the topic (e.g., atmos- adequate training and credentials who do come pheric phenomena) may be useful, a study of up with a clearly defined, specific proposal" UFOs in general is not a promising way to expand should be supported, implying that normal scientific understanding of the phenomena. On competitive procedures and assessments of the basis of present knowledge the least likely proposals should be followed here as is customary. explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extra- We concur with these evaluations and recom- terrestrial visitations by intelligent beings. mendations. GERALD M. CLEMENCE, chairman; H. R. CRANE, DAVID M. DENNISON, WALLACE O. IV. PANEL CONCLUSION FENI% H. KEFFER HARTLINE, E. R. HILOARD, i~ARK KAC, FRANCIS W. REICItELDERFER, The range of topics in the Report is extensive WILLIAM W. RUBEY, C. D. S~a~E, OSWALD G. and its various chapters, dealing with many VILLARD, JR.

MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW PANEL Gerald M. Clemence, Chairman, Yale University H. R. Crane Mark Kac University of Michigan The Rockefeller University David M. Dennison Francis W. Reichelderfer University of Michigan Washington, D.C. Wallace O. Fenn William W. Rubey University of Rochester University of California H. Keffer Hartline at Los Angeles The Rockefeller University C. D. Shane E. R. Hilgard Santa Cruz, California Stanford University Oswald G. Villard, Jr. Stanford University

The Condon Report, Scientific Study of Uniden- lated study by many investigators ,outside tiffed Flying Objects. E. P. Dutton & Co., New the mainstream of science. But, in the view of York, 1969. 967 pp. $12.95 ; also Bantam Books, most scientists, it has been a nonsense problem New York, 1969, $1.95. not to be accorded serious scientific considera- tion. The "UFO problem" has, over the past 22 The Condon Report and its subsequent strong years, aroused strong public concern and stimu- endorsement by an 11-man ad hoc panel of the 444 BOOK REVIEWS

National Academy of Sciences, essentially serve Oct. 15, 1948; White Sands, l~lew Mexico, April to reaffirm that latter reaction to the UFO prob. 24, 1949; Longviow, Washington, July 3, 1949; lem. In my opinion, neither the Report nor the and many others). Academy offer adequate scientific argument to (4) In many eases which the Report does support their positions. After months of checking discuss, the level of analysis and the thorough- specific cases appearing in the Condon Report, ness of the discussion are woefully inadequate following upon more than two years of personal (e.g., Lakeruheath, England, Aug. 13, 1956; interviewing of witnesses in about five hundred Beverly, Massachusetts, April 22, 1966; Vanden- selected UFO cases, I find it extremely difficult berg AFB, Oct. 6, 1967; Louisiana-Texas B-47 to understand how so inadequate a report could case, Sept. 19, 1957; Kirtland AFB, Nov. 4, have received such cleax-cut Academy endorse- 1957; just to cite a few examples). ment--except for the fact that none of the 11 • (5) Even the description of the basic facts of panelists had any evident prior scientific contact the case is seriously deficient in many instances with the subject and none, as fax as is known, (e.g., Haneda AFB, Aug. 5, 1952; Joplin, Me., undertook any cross-check investigations of Jan. 13, 1967; Paeheco Pass, Calif., Jul. 28, 1967 ; eases to be found in the Condon Report. Few Seven Islands, Queb,~ June, 29 1954, as well as scientific subjeogs receive Academy endorsement several of those cited in connection with the on such a superficial basis. It is my considered preceding point, particularly the B-47 ease). opinion that this strong endorsement will ulti- (6) Key witnesses were not even contacted in mately come home to roost on the steps of 2101 a number of the more significant cases for which Constitution Avenue, and that the Academy will quite unsatisfactory conventionalizing explan- be hard put to account for having placed its ations were proposed (e.g., Beverly, Massachu- stamp of approval on such a superficial report on setts; Kirtland AFB; Seven Islands, Queb., a problem that has deeply puzzled the public for Washington, D.C., July 19 and 26, 1952). over two decades. The Report is bulky, but superficial nonetheless. (7) And, in other cases which the Report Certain salient weaknesses deserve particular finally concedes to be unexplained, key witnesses emphasis : whom I haxt little difficulty contacting and interviewing were not interviewed by the Colorado group (e.g., 1957 B-47 case; Utica, (1) Out of the many thousands of UFO reports New York, airliner ease, Jml. 23, 1955; Capital now on record from just within the United States Airlines, Nov. 14, 1956). alone, the Report analyzes a total of only about (8) Exact dates, geographic locales, and 90 cases--a sampling of under 1~o of the witness names are omit~ed from all of the 59 available reports. cases comprising the core of the 90-odd cases (2) And, even in that comparatively small discussed; in the remainder, date and locale but sample, the Report fails to concentrate attention not witness names appear. This creates obvious on the truly puzzling reports that have come from difficulties for independent check by other witnesses of highest credibility over the years. investigators, as well as hampering just such Instead it treats a mixture fax too heavily discussions as this present one. The declared weighted with trivial cases not representative of reason was to avoid embarrassment to witnesses, the type of reports that forced the Air Force to but the net effect is that only persons familiar seek outside help in settling its commitment to with the U-FO problem and with the specific case resolve the UFO mystery. The Colorado project material examined by the Condon group are in a was supposed to explain the tough ones, not the proper position to assess independently the easy ones. strengths and weaknesses of the Report in the (3) The Report omits completely many of the face of such omissions. most outstanding UFO reports on record. Its (9) Scientifically weak or specious argumen- omission even includes some cases which I know tation abounds in the Report's ease analyses. its investigators checked and which warranted Unfortunately, within the scope of a mere review, serious discussion in the final draft, e.g., that charge cannot be backed up with specific Levolland, Texas, 1Wov. 2, 1957, and Redlands, critique, since to do so would require lengthy California, Feb. 4, 1968. Its omissions also include discussion. But to cite just a few examples, see many historically important eases which it was the cases for Flagstaff, Arizona, May 20, 1950; urged specifically to examine by independent the B-47 case, 1957; Haneda AFB, Japan, Aug. investigators such as myself, and for which it had 5, 1952; Odessa, Wash., Dee. 10, 1952; Continen- -the basic Air Force files, yet failed to confront tal Divide, New Mexico, Jan. 26, 1953; Seven (Eastern Airlines, July 24, 1948 ; Fukuoka, Japan Islands, Queb., June 29, 1954; or Vandenberg BOOK REVIEWS 445

AFB, Sept. 10, 1967. Many more examples could past writings on the UFO problem (e.g., the readily be cited. books of Ruppelt, Keyhoe, and Hall, among (10) Despite treatment of a quite small total others). I have before me the 25-page Air Force number of cases, despite inclusion of an objec- Project Bluebook file, made up of the original tionably large number of cases so trivial they intelligence reports from the Far East Air Force should not have warranted even mention, despite units that did the direct investigation. Significant concomitant omission of some of the scientifically omissions of important detail occur in the version most puzzling UFO eases of the 1947-67 period, presented in the Condon Report. That the tower- and finally despite levels of case presentation and control airmen who were observing a luminous analysis that I can only criticize as generally unidentified aerial source described it as "an inadequate, a quite astonishing feature of the intense bright light" is omitted, as is the support- Report (which seems to have escaped both Dr. ing comment that its intensity suggested "an Condon as he wrote his conclusions and also the aircraft with landing lights on," a significant Academy panel as it endorsed those conclusions) remark since it came from an experienced air is the fact that, out of the roughly 90 cases con- controller. It was an almost completely clear sidered, a tally reveals that just over 30 are night of full moon and 60-mile visibility, yet the finally left in the "Unexplained" category. (See luminous source (which the Report attempts tally on p. 173 and index entries under "Sight- finally to equate to Capella) exhibited sudden ings, unexplained" on p. 961, as an aid in checking disappearances on several occasions and changed that count. I get 32 ; but some cases are so equivo- altitude rapidly: "I watched it disappear twice cally treated one cannot be sure of the final through the glasses. It seemed to travel to the status.) When a supposedly definitive investi- east and gain altitude at a very fast speed, much gation of a long-puzzling problem such as this faster than any jet. Every time it disappeared it fails to give satisfactory accounting for about 30 returned again, except for the last time when the of 90 cases considered, why does its director con- jets were around." Capella lay at azimuth 40 °, elude (p. 1) "that further extensive study of yet the Air Force report mentions that "the UFOs probably cannot be justified in the object faded twice to the east, then returned," as expectation that science will be advanced seen from Haneda. And even more obviously thereby" ? incompatible with the Report's Capella explana- (11) Over and above the foregoing criticisms, tion is the omitted information that independent I must remark that so much basically non- control tower observers from another air base, relevant padding has thickened the Report that Tachikawa AFB, saw the object not to their it will give some readers the impression of great noth-northeast, but "over Tokyo Bay," implying scope and others the impression that it's so a line of sight to the east or even east-southeast detailed as to defy easy study. Although some of some 50 degrees south of CapeIla, a line of sight that excess bulk comprises discussion material intersecting Haneda's over Tokyo Bay. Thus done in a fairly businesslike way, it does not both Haneda and Tachekawa reported an intense directly illuminate specific puzzling UFO eases, luminosity over just the area where the radar and per se, and hence really does not support the aircraft shortly thereafter located an unconven- mission laid before the Condon project, namely, tional target, yet the Condon Report cites the showing whether careful scientific analyses can direction of the line of sight only for that location give satisfactory conventional explanations of fitting its Capella hypothesis. the most puzzling UFO reports of the past The very fact that "diffraction" is loosely twenty years. alluded to in the Capella explanation indicates the superficiality of the analysis, as does the (12) The Report does have some redeeming suggestion that corona effects demand droplets features, some good subsections (e.g., photoeases, "spaced at regular intervals". And the suggestion instrumentation suggestions), and there do that the Capella's apparent brightness may have appear some individual cases where the level of been enhanced by "Raman brightening" reveals investigation is impressive (e.g., Falcon Lake, misunderstanding of the optics of the latter effect Manitoba, May 20, 1967) ; but these seem to me to casually disregarding rather stringent angular be heavily outweighed by the many disturbingiy requirements for any such mirage-type phenom- weak features of the study. enon. (Capella's elevation angle of about 8 degrees was far too great to permit sensible inter- To make some of the foregoing criticisms more action with an inversion layer; but the latter was explicit, we might consider the Haneda AFB case merely postulated to exist in any event.) Finally, of August 5-6, 1956, 1952, an example of a long- the description of the luminosity actually given puzzling case that has been described in many in the Air Force intelligence report involves too 446 BOOK REVIEWS great an angular diameter and too much second- crew." Such a statement will have to be accepted ary detail to fit any "diffractive" or other optical by most readers of the Report; but my examin- distortion of a star. To the naked eye, its angular ation of the intelligence files clearly contradicts diameter was near the resolution limit, but, in that. The radar officer in the rear of the F-94B, 7 × binoculars used by the controllers, its appar- like the others in this case, submitted signed ent subtense would have been near 20 minutes testimony which was in the case file, of which of arc. "The light was described as circular in copies went to the Colorado project. The radar- shape," the USAF files show, "with brilliance man states: "At 0015 (LST) Hi-Jinx (codename appearing to be constant across the face. The for Shiroi GCI) gave us a vector of 320 degrees. light appeared to be a portion of alarge round dark Hi-Jinx had a definite radar echo and gave us the shape which was about four times the diameter vector to intercept the unidentified target. Hi- of the light. When the object was close enough Jinx estimated the target to be at 11 o'clock to for details to be seen, a smaller, less-brilliant light us at a range of 4 miles. At 0016 I picked up a could be seen at the lower left-hand edge, with radar contact at 10 degrees port, 10 degrees two or three more dim lights running in a curved below, at 6000 yards. The target was rapidly line along the rest of the lower edge of the dark moving from port to starboard and a lock on shape." Even omitting these pertinent report could not be accomplished..." Omission of the details, the Capella diffraction suggestion is so foregoing description of the almost exact far from adequate that one has to smile a bit at correspondence between the location of the UFO the Report's statement, "The precise nature of relative to the F-94 as given by Shiroi's vectoring the optical propagation mechanism that would instructions and the locations where the F-94 got have produced such a strangely diffracted image radar contact on it, plus omission of other related as reported by the Haneda AFB observers must file information bearing on correspondence remain conjectural." By omitting the important between airborne and ground radar observations, print that the line of sight from Tachikawa AFB is difficult to understand; but it is by no means lay about 50 degrees away from Capella, by unrepresentative of the handling of much case omitting reports of rapid altitude changes, by material in the entire Report. describing what the airmen referred to as several Before considering other omissions, it is distinct secondary lights at the bottom of the important to note that the Condon Report con- dark periphery as merely "some bright beading," cludes that "unusual radar propagation effects... by ignoring lack of correspondence of the dark produced the apparent UFO tracks on radar." periphery to any known optical effect, by Such an hypothesis is given a casually believable ignoring the point that Capella lay at too high an ring by failing to bring out the above-mentioned angular elevation to be significantly influenced simultaneous tracking by ground and airborne by inversion refractive effects and related Raman radar. It is also given greater apparent plausibility interference possibilities, by misconstruing the when the Condon Report fails to cite the fact that, geometric implications of the latter, and by just prior to the vectoring the F-94 to the un- ending up lamely asserting that "the phenom- known, Shiroi GCI tracked the unknown through enon must be quite rare," the Condon Report two full orbits over the north end of Tokyo Bay, casually writes off the visual portions of this during which it varied speed markedly and even famous sighting as "an optical effect on a bright hovered at times: "The object at this time," the light source." I could cite a disconcertingly FEAF intelligence report says, "had left the large number of comparable instances in other ground clutter and could be tracked at varying cases in the Condon Report. But this is only part speeds in a right orbit. Although impossible to of the total mishandling of this one case; the mis- accurately estimate speed, Lt. -gave a handling and inadequate confrontation of the rough estimate of from 100 to 150 knots, stopping radar portions must also be described, even to and hovering occasionally, and a maximum give a summary impression of my objections to speed during the second orbit (just before F-94 this single illustrative example. was vectored in) of possibly 250-300 knots. At The USAF radar station at Shiroi (an ADC approximately 0012, the object reportedly broke GCI site with CPS-1 and CPS-4 radars) was into three smaller contacts, maintaining an alerted by Haneda, and eventually found an interval of about 1/4 mile, with one contact unknown target moving in a right orbit over the remaining somewhat brighter. The F-94 was north end of Tokyo Bay. From Johnson AFB an vectored on this object, reporting weak contact F-94B jet with APG-33 airborne radar was at 0015 and loss of contact at 0018, Within a few scrambled. The Condon Report asserts that: "It seconds, both the F-94 and the object entered the is not clear whether the GCI radar ever tracked ground clutter and were not seen again." Note the fast-moving target described by the F-94 the clear indication in that cited passage that BOOK REVIEWS 447

GCI was tracking the F-94 and the unknown seems hard to understand. I cannot understand simultaneously and that, concurrently, the F-94 it. was in radar contact with the unknown. To suggest that this could be "anomalous propa- J.E. McDo~ALD gation" is simply absurd, and I believe I need not take space to cite detailed reasons for that view. Institute of Atmospheric Physics The very fact that the F-94 first picked up the University of Arizona 85721 unknown on a radar line of sight 10 degrees below Tucson, Arizona the horizontal would strain an anomalous- propagation hypothesis to the breaking point, The Condon Report, Scientific Study of Uniden- but the fact that the unknown was steadily tiffed Flying Objects. E. P. Dutton & Co., New ground-tracked through two orbits and then York, 1969. 967 pp. Price $12.95; also Bantam tracked with an F-94 in radar pursuit, seems Books, New York, $1.95. to me to rule out decisively the explanation offered to the reader of the Condon Report. The issue of unidentified flying objects, Both the Shiroi GCI controller and the F-94 conceived in the crucible of sensationalistic radarman are quoted in the intelligence file as journalism, eventually grew to become a national describing the unknown as "a bona fide moving issue. In 1966, enthusiasts of UFOs finally man- target," of cross section slightly under that of a aged to force the Federal government to take jet. Attitudinal cross section changes may be serious steps in the matter. A sum of 2 million implied in other testimony not given the reader in dollars was granted to a group of respectable the Condon Report : "The blips on the CPS- 1 were scientists under the leadership of Dr. Edward U. described as small and relatively weak, but Condon, a noted atomic scientist, to form a team sharply defined. The brightness varied some- at the University of Colorado to study in a scien- what, and at one time appeared very bright as tific manner, whether the UFOs reported by the object appeared to be in a fairly sharp turn at many sighters were indeed spaceships from higher speed than previously noted. Both beyond the solar system. recorded orbits were in approximately the same The study period lasted two years, a time span position, with the object moving and occasionally which is long enough for some meaningful con- hovering in one position for several sweeps (4 clusions to be reached and yet short enough to rpm) .... "And note that the latter remark implies prevent most members of the team from feeling hovering for something like 40-50 seconds, in that the search for UFOs has or will become between movements estimated at several hun- their life career. In addition, Dr. Condon's group dred mph, and evidently reaching values in has "been able to place aside all prejudices" and excess of F-94 speed (about 400 mph) in the final to proceed with the study of the UFO reports phases. Anomalous propagation! with a scientific attitude. If harsh questions were So much for one illustrative case. I assert that asked, it is because that was the only way that many more could very readily be cited, based on unbiased answers could be obtained. my own recent extensive review of case material The study resulted in a voluminous report, in the Condon Report. The study is seriously containing nearly 1000 pages of fine printed deficient in precisely those areas most essential material and presented in seven sections. The to the basic mission of the Colorado Project. introduction is written by Walter Sullivan, New Only an Academy panel that was rubber- York Times science editor and author of the book, stamping, not independently and vigorously "We Are Not Alone," describing recent scientific cross-checking, could have endorsed such a efforts to find extratcrrestial civilizations in our report. Unfortunately, the total number of scien- universe. tists who are even slightly informed about LIFO Section I presents the main conclusion and case material is still minute; so present general recommendations for a future approach to the acceptance of the negative conclusions of the UFO problem. The conclusion is plain enough: Condor, Report is probably an almost inevitable "...Nothing has come from the study of UFOs short-term response. But, in the longer run, it is in the past 21 years that has added to scientific my belief that this Report and its high-level knowledge. Careful consideration of the record acceptance will come to seem almost incredible. as it is available to us leads us to conclude that For the real nature of the U~FO phenomena seems further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot so scientifically challenging and cries out for be justified in the expectation that science will such top-caliber attention that a major study be advanced thereby." The statement that which led only to downgrading it to even lower "...further extensive study...cannot be justi- levels than it had enjoyed in all preceding years fied..." probably will enrage those who have