Synthèse d'une allocution du Dupont Chapter of The Scientific Research Society of America (RESA), Wilmington,
Delaware, 12 février 1969.
Quiconque qui lit cette étude will, je crois, lay it down with une nouvelle perspective sur les
valeurs et limitations humaines Walter Sullivan, dans l'Introduction à l'édition paperback du Rapport Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects,
Bantam Books, 1969
Les conclusions et recommandations negatives du Rapport Condon concernant
l'étude scientifique des ovnis sont maintenant une question d'archives publiques. Je conteste ces conclusions, les
contestant et les critiquant sur les bases suivantes :
- Le rapport n'analyse que près de 90 cas, une fraction infime des rapports d'ovnis significativement et
scientifiquement troublants aujourd'hui enregistrés.
- Il omet la considération de certains des cas connus les plus déroutants, des cas fameux que des personnes comme
moi-même ont incité spécifiquement le projet Condon à étudier. Il
omet même la discussion de certains cas significatifs que sur lesquelles l'équipe du projet a en fait enquêté (e.g.
Levelland et Redlands).
- Nombre des cas considérés par le rapport sont d'une nature si trivialement insignificante qu'ils auraient dû être
ignorés sur la base de leur absence de lien avec la mission première du projet, c'est-à-dire nommément, de
rechercher des explications aux types de cas réellement déroutants qui ont créé le problème de l'Air Force qui a
mené à l'établissement du projet du Colorado sur les ovnis
.
- Specious argumentation, and argumentation of scientifically very weak nature, abound in the Report's
case-analyses. And, while broadly charging bias on the part of those who have taken the UFO problem seriously in the
past, the Report exhibits degrees of bias in the opposite direction that deserve the sharpest of criticism.
- To anyone intimately familiar with relevant report-details, some of the cases considered in the Report exhibit
disturbingly incomplete presentation of relevant evidence; in a few instances, such defects seem little short of
misrepresentation of case-information. Cependant, I believe that the latter instances bespeak bias, not intent to
deceive.
- Despite all of the above, those who prepared the Report ended up with about a dozen (i.e., about 15 %) of their
cases in their "Unexplained" category. Some are extremely significant UFO cases (e.g., Texas B-47 ou Lakenheath); yet these Unexplained UFOs appear to have
been casually ignored by Condon in recommending that UFOs be considered of no further scientific significance.
- Irrelevant padding has thickened the report to a bulk that will discourage many scientists from studying it
carefully. Detailed UFO report-analyses should have been the primary content of this Report, yet trivia and
irrelevancies, or secondary material, are present in objectionably voluminous proportions.
- The Report, it must be noted, does exhibit a few bright facets; but these are obscured by its high average
defect-density.
- In all, I believe that the contents of the Rapport Condon fail dismally
to support the strong negative recommendations which Condon has presented in his own summary analysis. The strong
endorsement by the National Academy of Sciences will, I believe, prove to be a painful embarrassment to the Academy,
for it appears to be the epitome of superficial panel-evaluation by representatives of a scientific body that ought
always to warrant the prestige its good name enjoys.
My own estimate is that absolutely no further general progress towards scientific clarification of the UFO problem
will come until the inadequacies of the Condon Report are fully aired in as many ways as possible. I intend to devote
all possible personal effort to that objective; and NICAP is in process of preparing
an extended rebuttal report. So small a fraction of the scientific community is currently aware of the potential
scientific importance of the UFO problem that this rebuttal will probably be slow in taking effect; but the Report
seems so unrepresentative of good scientific work, so highly vulnerable to scientific criticism, that I believe its
negative influence (except with respect to USAF decisions about Projet Blue Book) will be quite short-lived.
