Article/Document:

Valuable UK UFO Project

Isaac Koi, UFO Updates Mailing List, 13 May 2006

original source |  fair use notice

Summary: As detailed below, I consider the Condign Report to be a very useful and valuable document. The report is valuable as a case study of the risks inherent in scientific research being conducted in secrecy, including the risks of inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

The British Ministry of Defence ("the MOD") has indicated that
on Monday 15 May 2006 it will be releasing the full text of a
report entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air
Defence Region, ("the Condign Report") on its website. [1]

On Thursday 11 May 2006, I was kindly given an opportunity by
Joe McGonagle to have a sneak preview of a copy of the bulk (but
not the entirety) of the Condign Report.

The Condign Report had been obtained from the Ministry of
Defence following various requests by Dr Clarke and Gary Anthony
under the Freedom Of Information Act ("FOIA"). The executive
summary of the Condign Report was made available to the media
and public on Sunday 7 May 2006 by Dr Dave Clarke and Messrs
Gary Anthony, Joe McGonagle and Andy Roberts. Those individuals
have a website at the link at:

http://www.uk-ufo.org/

That website includes biographical details of the relevant
individuals and an informative article about the trail they
followed to obtain the document. The relevant four individuals
have not adopted a collective name for themselves. Giving them
the name (suggested by Joe McGonagle) of "the Condign Team"
could cause some people to mistakenly believe that those
individuals wrote the Condign Report. I shall therefore instead
refer to them as the "Enterprising Members of the Public Team"
(or "EMP Team" for short). The reasons for this title will be
familiar to many British ufologists, and too tedious to explain
to everyone else.

Although work and family commitments (not to mention eating,
sleeping, and watching too much television) have limited the
amount of time available in the last 48 hours for me to study
the report and consult relevant books/articles, I thought it
worth putting a fair bit of effort into drafting a few
preliminary thoughts by today, Saturday 13 May 2006. I wanted
to make them available for consideration by anyone that wishes
to read them prior to any further interviews that may be
conducted by the media in the event of renewed interest on
Monday 15 May 2006. I hope that any mistakes or omissions are
looked upon sympathetically in these circumstances.

___________________

As detailed below, I consider the Condign Report to be a very
useful and valuable document. The report is valuable as a case
study of the risks inherent in scientific research being
conducted in secrecy, including the risks of inefficiency and
ineffectiveness.

The Condign Report appears to have been compiled by a single
individual:

(a) without involving any consultation with scientists in the
relevant fields, and

(b) without involving any consultation with ufologists to
determine what previous consideration of the relevant theories
had occurred (including to discover if any reasons had been
advanced for rejecting the relevant theory or whether there was
any data inconsistent with it).

These factors are at the core of the most significant problems
with this severely flawed report.

In short, the Condign Report reinvents the wheel. The theory
that UFO sightings are caused by plasma has been considered
previously by various ufologists, scientists and engineers. The
Condign Report advances this theory without reference to much of
that previous consideration (or apparent awareness of the
relevant material), or any reference to the various arguments
opposing that theory.

The severe flaws in the Condign Report highlighted below do
_not_ mean that the plasma theory (or any other theory) is
necessarily wrong, and they certainly do not mean that the
claims that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth are true.
Publications of such sloppy quality give skepticism a bad name.

___________________

The Condign Report consists of 3 numbered volumes plus an
Executive Summary. These volumes can be briefly outlined as
follows:

(a) The Executive Summary: This seeks to briefly summarize the
material in the other volumes (particularly the conclusion from
Volume 1). It is rather rambling, disorganized and unclear.

(b) "Volume 1" : This contains the main report. It contains the
conclusions reached, and outlines the methodology adopted.

(c) "Volume 2" : This volume comprises 25 "Working Papers"
(also referred to as "Point Papers") on various topics, ranging
from relevant scientific issues to details of various objects
which are common causes of UFO reports.

(d) "Volume 3" : This relatively brief volume discusses various
miscellaneous matters, including an assessment of UAP as
potential hazards to aircraft. The issues it addresses are
relatively discreet and I will not attempt to comment on this
Volume at present. I will merely note that the Condign Report
deals with UAP as potential hazards to aircraft without
discussing a book by Jenny Randles devoted to this very subject.
Her book "Something in the Air", also published as "UFO! Danger
in the Air", was published in 1998)

__________________

The "Executive Summary"

The Terms of Reference for the Condign Report are provided at
Volume 1, Annex A. They indicate that the author of the report
had been instructed that the aim of his task was "to determine
the potential value, if any, of UAP sighting reports to defence
intelligence" (Volume 1, Annex A, para 1). The Terms of
Reference also specify the method by which this objective is to
be fulfilled : "A limited analysis based on an electronic
relational database containing data extracted from UAP sighting
reports, over a period to the present date." (Volume 1, Annex A,
para 2).

(The Condign Report uses the term "UAP" to refer to
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" [Executive Summary page 3, first
para], "popularly known as UFOs" [Executive Summary page 3, Para
1].)

Those wishing to defend the honour of the MOD and/or the author
of the Condign Report may seek to suggest that the severe flaws
in the Condign Report arise from the limited aims of the study.
However, the Condign Report purports to have the aim of making
"a rational scientific examination of the phenomena - based only
on the raw material - UKADR incident reports" (Volume 1,
Preface, penultimate para) and claims to be the "first UK
detailed and authoritative report [on UAPs] which has been
produced since the late 1950s" (Volume 1, Chapter 1, page 2,
page 2). In any event, regardless of the aims of the report, if
an analysis is to be performed then it should be performed
competently.

The Executive Summary of the Condign Report includes the
following:

Para 1: "That UAP exist is indisputable... and [they] clearly
can exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any
known aircraft or missile - either manned or unmanned"

Para 2 : "The topic has, hitherto, defied credible description
as to its actual cause."

Para 11: "Aerial phenomena of the type consistent with those
reported as UAP, and with exceptional characteristics, certainly
exist - but the available evidence suggests that apart from
those which can be more easily and satisfactorily explained,
they are comprised of several types of rarely encountered
natural events within the atmosphere and ionosphere. Some of
these are still barely understood ."

Para 12: "Considerable evidence exists to support the thesis
that the events are almost certainly attributable to physical,
electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere
and ionosphere. They appear to originate due to more than one
set of weather and electrically-charged conditions and are
observed so infrequently as to make them unique to the majority
of observers."

Para 13: "The close proximity of plasma related fields can
adversely affect a vehicle or person. For this to occur the UAP
must be encountered at very close ranges. A probable modulated
magnetic, electric or electromagnetic (or even unknown field)
appears to emanate from some of the buoyant charged masses.
Local fields of this type . have been medically proven to cause
responses in the temporal lobes of the human brain. These result
in the observer sustaining (and later describing and retaining)
his or her own vivid, but mainly incorrect, description of what
is experienced. . This is suggested to be a key factor in
influencing the more extreme reports found in the media and are
clearly believed by the 'victims'".

Para 17 : "There is no evidence that any UAP, seen in the UKADR,
are incursions by air objects of any intelligent (extra-
terrestrial or foreign) origin, or that they represent any
hostile intent."

Para 18: "Key Recommendation: . It should no longer be a
requirement for DI55 to monitor UAP reports as they do not
demonstrably provide information useful to Defence
Intelligence".

The basis for several of these comments is addressed below.

__________________

Preliminary points - seeing the silver lining

As a preliminary (and fairly significant) point, it should be
noted that even if every word of the Condign Report is accepted
at face value then many positive points may be made by
ufologists. Individuals on various Internet forums that have
dismissed the report (based on press reports about its contents)
as merely "disinformation" or part of a "cover-up" miss out on
an opportunity to make arguments based on the contents of the
report.

The first and most obvious of such positive points that could be
made by such individuals is as follows: If UFO reports are
indeed caused by a previously unrecognized form of atmospheric
plasma, then there are several reasonably strong arguments in
favour of at least limited funding for a scientific
investigation of such reports.

Apart from a desire to understand the unexplained, there reasons
include a desire to exclude any danger to air traffic, possible
military applications of the relevant knowledge and the
possibility of knowledge useful to developing fusion power
sources. In 1989, a scientific article entitled "Ball lightning
as a route to fusion energy" reviewed properties of ball
lightning which commended it to the attention of the fusion
community. [52] A similar commendation may be made in relation
UAPs.

Thus, the conclusion in the Condign Report provides reasons for
an investigation of UFO reports by scientists. Such an
investigation is, after all, exactly what many of the more
restrained ufologists have been seeking for the last few
decades.

Furthermore, this may have an effect upon the "giggle factor"
which hampers study in this area. The Washington Post ran an
article on 29 June 1998 which reported on a report on UFOs and
stated that "a sampling of scientists ... expressed surprise
that a topic with such a high 'giggle factor' might be
reincarnated for serious study, possibly further blurring the
lines between legitimate research and the 'lunatic fringe. Some
said they would never comment on the touchy topic..." [58].

A reduction in the "giggle factor" surrounding ufology would be
welcomed by me personally. As I have explained before, I use a
pseudonym when writing about issues relating to UFOs since, as a
barrister in England, I have no wish for my clients or
colleagues to know about my interest in any such matters.

It is also worth noting as a preliminary point that it is
possible to find a very considerable number of statements in the
Condign Report that may be seen as supporting, or at least being
consistent with, a more exotic explanation for UFO reports. The
author of the Condign Report clearly accepted many of the claims
made regarding sightings of at least certain types of UFO
(without really addressing the types of UFO which were
inconsistent with the plasma-UFO theory) and many of the alleged
effects of UFOs on the human body and other objects. The author
certainly has not rejected all relevant evidence out of hand.
(However, one of most serious of the many severe flaws in the
report is that the basis on which he accepts some evidence and
rejects other evidence is not apparent from the content of the
report. His judgments appear rather arbitrary, with assertions
being made without reference to evidence or any form of logic.)

A complete list of the relevant statements would be rather
extensive, but the following are fairly typical of the points I
have in mind:

(a) "Objects close to reported UAP sightings have been subject
to ... permanent magnetism (fences, flag poles) ... radio
interference ... interference with magnetic compasses" (Volume
2, Working Paper 1, Annex D, para 2).

(b) "Many of the event are reported by trained observers, often
members of the Armed Forces (both by Air and Ground Crew),
Police or Coastguards or Civil Airline Pilots" (Volume 1,
Chapter 2, page 2, para 5).

(c) "unless some unprecedented intelligence gaps have existed
over many years, the possibility that the study finding would
show that the presence of the unexplained proportion of UAP
sightings is due entirely to man-made phenomenon, while not
totally impossible, was clearly very unlikely" (Volume 1,
Chapter 2, page 4, para 8)

(d) "it is clear that some [CE3 and CE4] reports, from different
parts of the world, seem to have similarities beyond the normal
expectation of coincidence" (Volume 1, Chapter 2, page 7, para
16)

__________________

"Volume 1"

This contains the main report.

It contains the conclusions reached, and outlines the
methodology adopted.

Although the Executive Summary stresses the plasma-UFO theory
(and this was picked up by the media in its coverage of the
release of the report), the content of Volume 1 actually makes
it clear that the author considers that "simply man-made
airborne objects such as aircraft, para-wings or balloons are
often the explanation. The range of options then progresses
through a set of other relatively easily explainable man-made,
atmospheric and natural and unusual, propagation and atmospheric
phenomena (some of which are still not fully understood)"
(Volume 1, Chapter 2, page 2, para 2).

Volume 1 begins with an introduction which sets out the
historical background to the Condign Report. That background
consists of two paragraphs (Volume 1, Chapter 1, page 1, paras 1
and 2). Despite the brevity of that account and the very limited
number of matters discussed, it still manages to get extremely
basic facts incorrect.

The first of the relevant paragraphs refers to the "Flying
Saucer Working Party" set up in August 1950 (Volume 1, Chapter
1, page 1, para 1). The Condign Report refers to some of the
documentation relating to a report generated by that "Working
Party" but states that "The Department does not possess a copy
of this report .". Since that remark was written, however, the
MOD has in fact made a copy of that report available to the
public (following requests by two members of the EMP Team - Dave
Clarke and Andy Roberts) and it can be seen on the MOD website.
[47]

The second of the relevant paragraphs briefly refers to the
Condon report, the highly controversial study headed by Edward
Condon under a contract with the US Air Force, and which cost
over $500,000. The Condon study was performed by a team at the
University of Colorado, and involved multi-disciplinary teams
going into the field to investigate reports, and considering
data with the assistance of various scientists, together with
(at least for part of the study) with the assistance of the
members of a UFO group and seminars from leading ufologists. A
list of references to discussion of the Condon Report in
approximately 215 books is included in Koi Chrono Core at
1969.0109 [9].

The brief reference to the Condon Report in the Condign Report
manages to get the date of the Condon wrong. It states that "by
1966 the USA's CONDON Report had studied and reported .". In
fact the report was completed in late 1968 and released to the
public shortly thereafter, on 8 January 1969. Although this
mistake may simply be a typographical error, it seems probable
to me that the author of the Condign Report was confused by
reference to the Condon study having _commenced_ in 1996 [51].

A more substantial misstatement in the same paragraph of the
Condign report in relation to the Condon Report is that "Great
Britain took no part in this USAF study, and there is no record
of the Air Ministry requesting or receiving this report within
the Department" (Volume 1, Chapter 1, page 2, para 2). However,
the Ministry of Defence has released documents (stored at the
National Archives at Kew, London) which clearly show that in
fact there was liaison between members of the Condon study team
and British officials. Several documents, for example, relate to
a meeting involving relatively senior scientific officials from
within the MOD meeting with Robert Low of the Condon group. The
MOD documents show that British officials were reluctant to meet
with him, fearing that he was a UFO nut, but were pleasantly
surprised when they did have a meeting. Amusingly, private
documents show that Robert Low (although widely regarded as
being highly skeptical of exotic explanations for UFO reports)
was not prepared to take at face value information supplied by
British MOD officials about their views on UFOs. Ironically, the
Condign Report shows a similar mistrust of statements by other
governments about UFOs, stating that "it is recognized that some
of the information 'released by other nations may be deliberate
debunking or disinformation" (Volume 1, Chapter 5, page 1, para
2).

It is fairly clear from the content of his report that the
author of the Condign Report did not bother to obtain a copy of
the Condon Report. This is particularly significant given that
the Condon study actually considered the plasma-UFO theory and,
as discussed below, organized a conference of scientists to
discuss the merits of that theory. The Condign report, on the
other hand, appears to have been prepared in total isolation
from the scientific and ufological community. It does not refer
to, or address, even a small fraction of the material relating
to the plasma-UFO theory that is cited in the relevant chapter
of the Condon Report.

For anyone that wants to be a bit more diligent than the author
of the Condign Report, the paperback edition of the Condon
Report can be bought via various websites (e.g.
www.abebooks.com) fairly cheaply. Indeed, the complete text of
the Condon Report can be read free of charge on the following
websites:

http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/text/contents.htm

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/contents.html


The bulk of Volume 1 is largely devoted to statistical analysis
of a database of a limited number of the reports received by the
Ministry of Defence in the period 1987 to 1997. The preparation
of the relevant database clearly involved a rather substantial
amount of work. That included the "tedious task of converting
thousands of paper UAP reports into electronic form" (Volume 1,
Chapter 2, page 1, para 1).

The statistical analysis is repeatedly acknowledged to be based
on poor and incomplete data. For example, the report comments on
the fact that "the great majority of UK Report Forms are
incomplete or incompetently completed or as vague as the typical
example UAP report [presented at Annex B to Volume 1]" (Volume
1, Chapter 2, page 2, para 3). It further states that "as DI55
are not permitted to make follow-up investigations after UAP
events and not event to speak to witnesses to clarify the
meaning of (often cryptic or missing observations) analysis is
dependent only on the paper reports)" (Volume 1, Chapter 2, page
2, para 2).

As a result of these limitations the statistical analysis in the
Condign Report could not (and does not purport to) result in any
astounding conclusions.

In short, the statistical analysis appears to have largely (if
not entirely) been a waste of a considerable amount of time and
effort.

It is therefore surprising that the Condign Report bothers
including a considerable number of pretty graphs and charts and
a lengthy discussion of the results of the statistical analysis.

On an initial reading of the report, I was puzzled why the
author had bothered to perform (or include in his report) such
detailed statistical analysis of such poor data. It occurred to
me that the author was simply unaware of the old computing
adage, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" ("GIGO"). However, my initial
thought was unfair to the author. He actually includes in the
body of the report the following statement: "It is emphasized
however that those conclusions drawn can only be as good as the
reported data" (Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 3, para 2). Given the
numerous complaints in the report about the inadequacies in the
"reported data", I am left puzzled why the author bothered with
such detailed statistical analysis (other than feeling that the
Terms of Reference required him to perform such an exercise,
regardless of his own views).

In any event, that statistical analysis does not in fact appear
provide a basis for most of the conclusions of the report. Upon
a preliminary examination of the Condign Report, it appears to
me that about the only statement made in the executive summary
as a result of the compilation and analysis of the database is
that there is an increased incidence of UFO reports during
periods of peak meteor activity.

Given that the Condign Report's content, in accordance with the
relevant Terms Of Reference ("TOR"), largely relate to the
statistical analysis performed, one might have expected the
plasma-UFO theory advanced in the report to be supported by the
statistical analysis. With this in mind, readers may wish to pay
particular attention to the page of the report which actually
deals with an attempt to find a correlation between UAP reports
and weather conditions (Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 21, para 50).
The relevant page stresses the fact that an attempt was made to
analyze "the most obvious factor - that of the potential of
enhanced electrical conditions in the atmosphere". However, the
results of the consideration of several samples were mixed, with
the overall conclusion being drawn that "there are many
occasions when UAP reports are received when there is no
recorded thunder conditions and hence no enhanced electrical
activity in the form of lightning. On those occasions (other
man-made objects excepted) UAP must be caused by something
else".

It seems almost too minor a matter to note that the results of
the statistical analysis in relation to weather are in fact
misrepresented in the conclusions section a few pages later on.
The conclusions section states "Positive (+0.62) correlation was
shown between thunder (lightning present) and the presence of
UAP reports" [Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 31]. In fact, as noted
above, the relevant page of the analysis dealt with three
samples with mixed results. The first sample (1988 reports) has
a correlation of -0.43 (i.e. a negative correlation, i.e. UAP
are _less_ likely to be reported when there is a high incidence
of lightning), the second sample (1996 reports) has a positive
correlation of 0.62, and the third sample (1988 reports) had a
correlation of 0.19. It is not clear whether the correlation in
relation to the third sample was positive or negative, since the
relevant description of the results refers to a "weakly
positive" correlation but this appears to be a correlation
between days of thunder against days when _no_ UAP reports were
received (i.e. a negative correlation between UAP reports and
lightning). Thus, the conclusion section's reference to a
"positive (+0.62) correlation) merely refers to the one sample
out of the three which most supports the theory being advanced.
The other two samples (and the significant disparity in the
results) are simply ignored in the conclusions section.

Instead of advancing a theory that plasmas caused by weather
conditions are misreported as UFOs (as suggested by some reports
in the media), the thrust of the material relating to
statistical analysis is in fact that meteors are the most
significant cause of plasmas which result in UAP reports.

The reasoning in support of this contention is probably the most
amusing part of the report.

The report does not contain any references to data in support of
the suggestion that plasma bodies are generated by meteors.
Instead, the report refers to the large quantity of matter
entering the earth's atmosphere which "in theory is said to burn
up". The report then simply says that certain issues arise "if
it is postulated that" not all this material burns up or impacts
the surface. (The report acknowledges that there is "a dearth of
information in the scientific press on this possibility").

The report then makes the further imaginative leap that the
postulated further material turns into "meteor plasmas". The
report notes a finding (which may not be considered very
surprising) that "peak reporting periods co-incided with meteor
show peaks", but contends that the reports did not involve (as
one might have expected) sightings of "falling meteors" but were
in fact sightings of "meteor plasmas". The report simply asserts
that these sightings "were clearly events which occurred after
the plasmas had been formed, were usually at low altitude and
exhibited the regularly-seen erratic, bobbing, hovering and
climbing motion which would not [sic] be mistaken by the public
and other credible witnesses" [Volume 1, Chapter 3, paras 53-65
(particularly at paras 54-55 and 65)]

__________________

"Volume 2" : Outline

This volume comprises 25 "Working Papers" (also referred to as
"Point Papers").

The 25 Working Papers appear to be based on extremely limited
research. Most of the 25 "Working Papers" only cite one or two
items in support. Indeed, few of those articles actually relate
to the central contentions in the Condign Report and are in fact
at most of peripheral relevance.

On an initial review of the Condign Report, the key Working
Papers appear to be the first and last ones, i.e.: (a) Working
Paper 1 (particularly Annex D and (especially) Annex F) in
relation to UAP effects on humans and objects. (b) Working Paper
25 on magnetic field effects on humans.

The material in these two Working Papers relies upon the
research of Michael Persinger about the possibility that
magnetic fields may affect brain activity, particularly the
temporal lobe areas. The Condign Report accepts that there is a
"high probability" that UAPs produce EM radiation which "can
affect the brain", causing "the brain to interact in an unusual
way with the imagination 'library', causing reports of visual
activity which are not in fact a true representation of the
facts" (Volume 2, Working Paper 1, Annex F, paras 13-16. See
also Working Paper 25).

Stanton Friedman and others interested in astronautics will also
find Working Paper 6 ("Exotic Technologies") particularly
entertaining. Though interesting generally, I'd note in
particular the confusion evident paras 3-8, 22, 30 and 32.
Paragraph 3 is probably the most confused and I'd be interested
in comments on it from astronomers. It states "Intergalactic
travel requires [approximately] four million years for a return
trip (travelling at just less than the speed of light), or three
years, even to a nearby planet at 20Km [per sec] - a planet on
which we can determine no signs of life in the form which would
indicate 'beings' and their technology".

It is fairly clear from the content of the report that the
author read about Persinger in books by Jenny Randles and/or
Paul Devereux and then looked up articles by Persinger. It is
also fairly clear that the author of the report did not bother
to obtain Persinger's book or review the literature criticizing
Persinger's conclusions.

In fact, it is reasonably certain even from a preliminary
reading that the author of the Condign report obtained Paul
Devereux's second book on Earthlights i.e. "Earth Lights
Revelations" (1989), but had not read Paul Devereux's first
book, i.e. "Earthlights". Paul Devereux's first book, i.e.
"Earthlights" contains several reasons for doubting Persinger's
conclusions. None of those reasons are referred to, or
addressed, in the Condign Report.

One of the reasons that has repeatedly been expressed in the UFO
literature for questioning the equating Persinger's lab
experiments with real life UFO witnesses is the strength of the
magnetic fields involved. As the Condign Report acknowledges,
"unfortunately there are no electric or magnetic field strength
measurements taken" of any emissions from UAPs(Volume 2, Working
Paper 1, Annex F, para 5).

Furthermore, the Working Papers appear to have been drafted by
the same person, rather than specialists in each of the relevant
fields. This may be the explanation for the evident lack of
understanding of some of the material summarized in those
Working Papers.

The fact that all the Working Papers appear to have been drafted
by the same person The may also explain the omission of any
reference to (or apparent awareness of) much of the existing
relevant material.

Indeed, a substantial quantity of the content of the material
relating to plasmas etc (e.g. Working Paper 10 on Earthlights)
is taken from readily identifiable UFO literature. When I saw
the material is "taken from readily identifiable UFO
literature", I do not merely mean that that author has done a
literature survey and has summarized the most relevant evidence
and arguments. Instead, in at least some cases, the author of
the Condign report has lifted material almost verbatim.

The Condign Report shows an awareness of (and takes material
from) an extremely small number of UFO books. It is possible to
identify the influence of certain books by Jenny Randles and
Paul Devereux. I have not had time to confirm it, but it seems
probable that some material was also obtained from one of Albert
Budden's books. ___________________

Volume 2: The plasma-UFO theory

The Condign Report has been the subject of widespread media
coverage (particularly in Britain) since the EMP Team made the
press aware of the report.

Each media article focused upon the suggestion in the report
that UFO reports may be caused by atmospheric-electrical plasmas
of some type similar to ball lightning, but perhaps something
different, something we don't yet understand but generated by
atmospheric processes.

Despite the fact that the media coverage concentrated on the
plasma , in the first few days of reporting of the Condign
report, media coverage failed to include any mention of the fact
that the plasma UFO theory has in fact been around for
approximately 40 years. Although one article (on the website of
the journal Nature, [3]) has now quoted Ian Ridpath as stating
that "the ideas about electrical plasmas being mistaken for
alien craft are far from being a new idea", I have yet to see
any references to the discussion of that theory that has taken
place within ufology since the plasma UFO theory was first
proposed. To some extent, this is explicable by reference to the
content of the Condign Report. The Condign Report is almost
devoid of references to the ufological literature relating to
the plasma UFO theory. Indeed, the Condign Report is almost
devoid of references, period.

Nor has there been any mention in the media (or, so far as I can
recall, on the Internet) during the last week to the fact that
the United States Air Force has previously (indirectly) funded a
conference of scientists from several prestigious universities
and scientific laboratories to discuss the plasma UFO theory.
(This omission is more readily excused, since I do not recall
any mention of that conference in UFO books).

As discussed below, this theory had in fact been the subject of
several articles, at least one book and at least one conference
of scientists. Indeed, the hypothesis that UFO reports may be
caused by ball lightning was considered by the United States Air
Force in the Project Grudge report, back in 1949. Despite being
provided with that material, the US Air Force very rarely refer
to lightning as being a cause of UFO reports. This can be seen
from an examination of a summary of the results of Project Blue
Book, a long running investigation of UFOs by the US Air Force.
An ambitious project involving various ufologists has recently
made available that summary (plus many other Project Blue Book
documents) at the website below:
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/browse.aspx

(The existence of the relevant mass of US Air Force documents on
the Internet has been referred to relatively infrequently to
date. This may be because the ufologists involved in the
relevant project have remained relatively quiet about their
work. Or it may simply be that analysis of those documents is
relatively dull and hard work compared to looking at the latest
"cool pic" of a UFO or document of unknown provenance which
"proves" that "They" know "The Truth". Those inclined to
consider the relevant US Air Force documents may find the
material at [6], [7] and [8] helpful.).

Evidence in support of a plasma-UFO theory was put forward in
considerable detail in the first UFO book written by Philip J
Klass, "UFOs - Identified". The Working Papers do not appear to
pick up on most of the evidence and arguments in support of that
theory advanced by Klass. Indeed, it is fairly clear that the
author did not bother to obtain the book by Klass. Instead, he
appears to have relied upon summaries of that evidence and/or
reinvented the wheel.

It is noteworthy that this theory was subsequently abandoned, or
at the very least marginalised, by Klass himself. The plasma UFO
theory was relegated to a short mention in the next UFO book by
Klass, although he still appears to have supported that theory
(briefly commenting that he had become aware of several UFO
reports "which provide further support for [the UFO plasma]
hypothesis". [44] However, a fellow skeptic that co-operated
with Klass, Robert Sheaffer, has written that: "Several years
after the publication of [the plasma-UFO] explanation in UFOs
Identified (Random House, 1968), Klass began to rethink his
appraisal of the UFO phenomenon. He now explains that when he
first became interested in UFOs it did not seem to him to be
possible that apparently sane and sober persons would mistake a
distant planet or a hovering air-balloon for a huge, brilliant
object just hundreds of feet away. But the experience of years
of investigating UFO reports convinced him that such
misperceptions are not only possible but in fact often happen.
Klass now believes that the phenomenon of ball lightning plays
only a minor role in the overall UFO picture". [42, 43].

"UFOs - Identified" was preceded by two relevant articles by
Klass. In fact, both articles by Klass were preceded by at least
one article that had already put forward the plasma-UFO theory
several months earlier. A newspaper article dated 17 April 1966
had discussed experiments by "Jenzano" (the director of the
Morehead Planetarium) which had created plasma in a laboratory
and believed that "something like this is what UFO observers are
seeing" [59]. The numerous references on the Internet giving
Klass credit for first proposing the plasma-UFO theory are
therefore slightly inaccurate.

The first article by Klass generated considerable press
interest, catching the attention of publications as disparate as
New Scientist, Electronic Design and Saturday Review. [30]

A Time-Life publication summarises the reaction to his articles
as follows: "Klass received scant encouragement. Traditional
scientists had little reason to pursue his hypothesis; those who
had already made up their minds about UFOs were uninterested or
openly hostile. Newsweek called his theory 'one of the most
persuasive explanations of all' but added that the air force was
'noncommittal' and that UFO buffs were 'unimpressed'. One
skeptic sarcastically described Klass's theory as 'a freak of
nature - hitherto unknown to science: a clear weather plasma,
akin to 'ball lightning', caused by an electrical discharge from
nearby high-tension power lines, which was somehow able to
detach itself, grow to tremendous size, and cavort about the
countryside under its own power". [41]

Some researchers rejected the plasma-UFO theory out of hand.
Others accepted that the theory could be an explanation of some,
or even all sightings. Some of those researchers, however,
complained that the scientific community had failed to test the
plasma UFO theory e.g. Lloyd Mallan [37].

For a more detailed consideration of the UFO plasma theory put
forward by Klass, see the relevant discussion in the various
books listed at [40].

Many discussions in UFO books or on the Internet have rejected
the plasma-UFO theory simply by reference to fact that it was
(supposedly) originally put forward by Klass (an individual
reviled by many pro-ETH researchers). If you are lucky, the
person rejecting the plasma-UFO theory may at least mention that
it was rejected by James E McDonald, one of a very small number
of atmospheric physicists to have considered UFO reports in
detail. However, it would be in the interests of all concerned
if, instead of merely referring to McDonald's views, an
explanation were given of the _reasoning_ behind his rejection
of the plasma UFO theory. Mere appeals to authority are commonly
(and rightly) criticized by ufologists when a skeptic simply
notes that an individual prominent scientist does not believe
that UFO reports are worth investigating.

This is particularly desirable given that McDonald's views on
the plasma UFO theory were expressed quite some time ago. If no
details of the basis of his views is given, it would be easy to
dismiss references to the position he held merely by noting that
a lot of time has passed and much more is now known about
plasma.

It is in fact possible to combine referring to McDonald's
reasoning with the additional objective of referring to a
significant U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science
and Astronautics "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects",
chaired by Congressman J Edward Roush ("the Roush hearing") on
29 July 1968. In his evidence at the Roush hearing, McDonald
made the following comment on the plasma-UFO theory:

"When you deal with multiple-witness cases involving discs with
metallic luster, definite outline, seen in the daytime,
completely removed from a thunderstorm, perhaps seen over center
Manhattan, or perhaps in Redlands, Calif., they are not ball
lightning or plasmas. ... One of the most characteristic
features of a plasma is its very short lifetime and exceedingly
great instability.. The difficulty of sustaining a plasma for
more than microseconds is a very great difficulty. To suggest
that clear weather conditions can somehow create and maintain
plasmas that persist for many minutes, and fool pilots . is
unreasonable. It is not a scientifically well-defended
viewpoint." [5]

McDonald did not, unfortunately, have a book on UFOs published.
A considerable amount of detail about his life and views is
given in a biography of McDonald by Ann Druffel ("Firestorm : Dr
James E McDonald's Fight for UFO Science" (2003)), a fascinating
book even if somewhat biased in favour of the ETH and McDonald
personally). It is, however, somewhat surprising that the book
does not appear to mention the fact that McDonald's interest in
UFOs was the subject of a significant dissertation by Paul
McCarthy entitled "Politicking and Paradigm Shifting: James E.
McDonald and the UFO Case Study". This omission is all the more
surprising given that even Klass (not exactly a fan of
McDonald.) has referred to that dissertation [56]. Fortunately,
the complete text of that dissertation is available to read free
on-line on the Project 1947 website at:

http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccarthy/contents.html#shgintro

"Firestorm" is at pains to stress repeatedly that McDonald
rebutted arguments advanced by Klass point by point and includes
some relevant brief comments at pages 165-166 (in Chapter 8).
Unfortunately neither "Firestorm" nor the thesis actually give
the relevant arguments in relation to the plasma-UFO hypothesis
in any detail. So far, I have been unable to find any of the
relevant papers by McDonald on the Internet (although some of
the relevant papers have been collected into a book which may be
purchased). Hopefully, the ufological community will be
sufficiently organized that it will respond to the Condign
Report by making some of McDonald's relevant papers available
online.

The author of the Condign Report also does not appear to be
aware of many of the arguments raised in opposition to the
plasma-UFO theory which Philip J Klass was fair enough to
include in his book, "UFOs - Identified". Klass reprinted a
letter from Richard Hall which included the following comments:
"Ball lightning ... bears little resemblance to the typical UFO
report. Ball lightning has never been observed to have distinct
geometrical outline, to be seen in this form in bright daylight,
to persist for more than a few minutes at most (normally a few
seconds), nor to exhibit the metallic-appearing surfaces,
sometimes with porthole-like markings. UFOs have exhibited all
these features". [11]

The Condon Report includes an entire chapter (by Martin D
Altschuler) on the plasma-UFO theory, ball-lightning and similar
matters. That chapter includes some comments on the book by
Philip Klass and the plasma-UFO theory it advances. The Condon
Report notes: "The book does not attempt to summarize any of the
fundamental principles of atmospheric electricity, plasma
physics, or atmospheric dynamics." [53]

More significantly, the same chapter of the Condon Report also
details a "plasma UFO conference" attended by several physicists
expert in either plasma physics or atmospheric electricity on 27
and 28 October 1967. That conference was organized by the Condon
study (which, as noted above, was funded by a contract with the
US Air Force). The attendees included:

(a) Marx Brook: New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology (b)
Keith A. Brueckner: University of California (San Diego) (c)
Nicholas C. Christofilos: University of California (Livermore)
(d) Ronald T. H. Collis: Stanford Research Institute (e)
Edmond M. Dewan: Air Force Cambridge Research Lab. (f) Herman
W. Hoerlin: Los Alamos Scientific Lab. (g) Bernd T. Matthias:
University of California (San Diego) (h) Arnold T. Nordsieck:
Santa Barbara, California (i) Marshall N. Rosenbluth: James
Forrestal Research Center (j) John H. Taylor: University of
California (San Diego) (k) Condon UFO Study Members

Various aspects of atmospheric electricity were reviewed at this
plasma UFO conference, such as ball lightning, and tornado and
earthquake luminescence. Unusual UFO reports were presented for
discussion. The Condon Report notes that "participants with a
background in theoretical or experimental plasma physics felt
that containment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely
under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so. The
plasma theory was not accepted by the participants in the
conference, with "all participants [being] agreed that the UFO
cases contained insufficient data for a definitive scientific
conclusion".

Possibly because of the incompleteness of, or inaccuracies
alleged in, the plasma-UFO theory advanced by Klass, several
pro-ETH authors have been able to advance an alternative
explanation. They have advanced theories that plasma are related
to UFOs - but these authors have sought to contend that the
plasma is generated by alien spaceships. For example:

(a) Paul Hill states that there is an "illuminated and
illuminating sheath of atmosphere [around UFOs which] is a
sheath of ionized and excited air molecules often called a
plasma" which Hill asserts is caused by a "power-plant-
connected, ionizing, wave type radiation from the UFO" [50]

(b) James M Campbell has written a book which discusses reports
indicating the presence of plasma, contending that this plasma
is the result of "the propulsion system of UFOs [involving] the
emission of microwave energy". [55]

(c) A different connection between vehicles and plasma was put
forward by Stanton T Friedman in his written statement evidence
to the Roush hearing. He referred to publications relating to
"interactions between vehicles and plasmas", stating that "there
is a body of technology which I have studied and which leads me
to believe that an entirely new approach to high speed air and
space propulsion could be developed using the interactions
between magnetic and electric fields with electrically
conducting fluids adjacent to the vehicles to produce thrust or
lift and reduce or eliminate such other hypersonic flight
problems as drag, sonic boom, heating, etc". [60]

__________________

Secrecy and the erosion of trust

Until recently, the MOD had consistently denied carrying out any
study of UFOs. The Condign Report itself refers to the fact that
the MOD had made an "inappropriate statement that the MOD has
not carried out any UAP investigations". The author of the
report comments, with evident irritation, that it will "there
will, most likely be a need to respond to the inappropriate
statement that the MoD has not carried out any UAP
investigations, which was issued in a written reply, by another
Department" [Volume 1, page 5, para 16].

This is not the only example of official documents being
somewhat at odds with answers given about UFOs in Parliament.
Various statements on behalf of the British Government that UFO
reports are investigated to determine whether they have any
defence significance. However, internal Ministry of Defence
documents from the same time period stated that this policy was
not fulfilled. A document prepared by a Mr E Humpston of DI55b
(the same department that commissioned the Condign Report)
included a comment that an investigation which fulfilled the
stated policy would require more time and effort than could be
devoted from the available resources, requiring "2-3 man days
... for each investigation" (Public Record Office File Reference
DEFE 31/119, memo dated 7th June 1967). In response to this
memo, A D Hunter ADI/DI55 advised Mr Potts DSTI was that since
further staffing on this low priority task could not be
contemplated, "we must therefore always fall short of what is
required to implement the stated official policy" (National
Archives File Reference DEFE 31/119, memo dated 7th June 1967).
The stated official policy, however, continued to be repeated.

Such contradictions between public statements and internal
documents are an obvious cause of conspiracy theories.

Similarly, secrecy in respect of UFO reports and investigations
feeds allegations of a "cosmic watergate" (a term used by some
ufologists when alleging that Governments are concealing
evidence of extraterrestrial visitors to this planet). Even the
University of Colorado report on UFOs ("the Condon Report")
contains fairly strident criticisms of secrecy in relation to
ufo reports. The Condon Report is not generally considered to be
biased in favour of ETH proponents. However, a section by Condon
himself includes the following: "It would have been wise . to
have declassified all or nearly all of the previous reports of
investigations of flying saucer incidents .. But secrecy was
maintained. This opened the way for intensification of the "aura
of mystery" which was already impairing public confidence in the
Department of Defense. Official secretiveness also fostered
systematic sensationalized exploitation of the idea that a
government conspiracy existed to conceal the truth."

It is ironic that the Condign Report (itself kept secret for 6
years) refers to a covert study group in the USA during the
1950s, commenting that "the covertness of this investigation
subsequently contributed greatly to charges of a government
'cover-up'" (Volume 1, Chapter 1, page 1, para 2).

The debate about secrecy in relation to UFO reports is usually
oversimplified. The existence of secrecy in relation to UFO
reports does not necessarily mean that the content of those
reports reveals anything astounding. It is common to ignore the
fact that several valid reasons for limited secrecy have been
advanced by several authors. However, close examination of
documents written by civil servants within the Ministry of
Defence reveals that less valid reasons have sometimes
influenced decisions against revealing ufo reports.

For example, there is one episode in particular that I find
interesting (although no one else seems to have shared my
concern about it, since I don't think anyone has referred to it
since I mentioned it on UFO UpDates a few years ago). It relates
to a request to the Ministry of Defence in 1975 by scientists
Mark Stenhoff (an expert on ball lightning), Dr Paul Davies (the
famous author) and Dr Christopher Evans (the author of a popular
book about skepticism) for UFO reports to be released to advance
understanding of ball lightning. A number of documents at the
National Archives relate to this request, including request
itself, the responses to it, and various internal Ministry of
Defence documents considering that request. Those documents
demonstrate the following:

(1) The reasons for the MOD being reluctant to release the
relevant reports included the need to redact material
identifying the person reporting the sighting or to obtain
permission from that person. The MOD was obviously reluctant to
be drawn into such a time consuming exercise.

(2) However, the documents also reveal a stated policy of being
prepared to release otherwise confidential UFO reports to "a
major scientific organisation of high standing" if it had
"strong reasons for obtaining access". One of the documents
relating to the request considers whether the request satisfied
this test. This further document suggested that the request
should be turned down since the 3 of you appeared to be a group
of academic drawn together "by an interest in UFOs" and that
this group therefore could not be described as "a major
scientific organisation of high standing" (See National Archives
File Reference AIR 2/19086, document E16 dated 11 June 1975 from
JEA Harrison).

(3) The relevant MOD documents also include one relatively long
memo discussing the potential release of the reports which notes
that such release could be "embarrassing to the Department" for
various reasons, including the "somewhat haphazard allocation"
of the relevant reports to the various categories used in public
statements on UFOs. (National Archives File Reference AIR
2/19086 document E21, undated but written in the context of
correspondence during the summer of 1975).

Personally, I thought it quite interesting to find an express
acknowledgement of "somewhat haphazard allocation" of UFO
reports to the various categories of explanations of UFOs, and
expressions of a desire to avoid release of documents
demonstrating such "somewhat haphazard allocation" since this
could "embarrassing to the Department". (Since I wanted to
highlight this episode and the issues it raised, perhaps I
should have attempted to emulate the dramatic nature of many
accounts within ufology. I could have mentioned back then the
facts (which are true) that (a) when I asked to see the relevant
file I was asked to sit in a special private and supervised
room, and (b) that I saw the relevant file before it should have
been released under the statutory provisions which were
applicable at that time.)

This incident is, to my mind, a particularly striking (though
far from the only) example of a evidence supporting a point made
by a UFO skeptic, Steuart Campbell: "In general, governmental
agencies do not have the skill or knowledge to explain UFO
reports. But rather than admit this, they either offer
ridiculous explanations or conceal information that would enable
others to explain them. However, the secrecy involved gives the
impression that something important is being concealed, fuelling
the UFO myth. Governments are victims of their own preoccupation
with secrecy." [23]

Criticisms have also been made by numerous other skeptics,
including Carl Sagan. He has made the following comment in
relation to the classification of UFO reports: "The armed forces
have a tendency to classify everthing in sight . Then the fact
that such cases are classified starts rumours. Somebody who is
in a position to know realizes the Air Force does have relevant
data; and it is just a short step to the idea of official
conspiracy to suppress the truth. Had the data not been
classified, then independent scientific judgments would have
been possible. In many cases, such independent scientific
analysis would show that the cases have a natural explanation.
The culprit is classification. I have a friend who says that in
America today if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your
mind. The military has a responsibility not to add further to
the paranoia". [61]

___________________

Conclusion

Even on a preliminary review of its content, numerous severe
flaws in the Condign Report can be readily identified.

As stated above, the severe flaws in the Condign Report
highlighted below do _not_ mean that the plasma theory (or any
other theory) is necessarily wrong, and they certainly do not
mean that the claims that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth
are true. Publications of such sloppy quality give skepticism a
bad name.

The Condign Report contains several statements which seek to
make virtues out of its vices. For example, the report fails to
refer to many of the specific cases (British and foreign) that
ufologists may have hoped to see dealt with. Even if that
expectation were restricted to cases which had occurred within
Britain (or restricted even further to cases that were reported
to the Ministry of Defence), it is an expectation which will be
disappointed upon reading the report. The Executive Summary does
not refer to even one specific case. More surprising, the
hundreds of pages in Volumes 1, 2 and 3 are almost as completely
devoid of reference to specific cases. However, the report seeks
to make a virtue out of this, by stating: "Every effort has been
made to take a wide systems approach, to avoid over-focusing on
single events" (see Volume 1, Preface, page ii, penultimate
para).

After reading over 100 pages of material, the reader is finally
rewarded with a comment on a specific well known case. That
comment relates to the best known recent British UFO case, the
Rendlesham Forest incident. The MOD's file on the incident has
been released to the public and is available on its website.
That incident has been discussed in dozens of books (by skeptics
and pro-ETHers) and has been the subject of several complete
books. The relevant comment (in full) from the Condign Report is
as follows "The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event
is an example where it might be postulated that several
observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than
normal UAP sighting periods. There may be other cases which
remain unreported. It is clear that the recipients of these
effects are not aware that their behaviour/perception of what
they are observing is being modified" (Volume 2, Working Paper
1, Annex F, page F-4, para 13).

It is disappointing that media reporting of the initial release
of the report did not refer to many of the above problems. At
the time of writing, it remains to be seen whether the media
spotlight will return to the report when the full document is
made available on Monday 15 May 2006 - but I am not optimistic
about the prospects of such coverage. The media spotlight has
moved on.

The EMP Team are, of course, not responsible for the content of
the relevant media reports. However, in an ideal world, it would
have been desirable for the report to have been provided in
confidence to some researchers that held opposing views prior to
the release of the report to the media. In this way, when the
media turned its spotlight on issues relating to this report it
would have been possible to obtain informed and considered
comment from individuals holding differing views. It is
unfortunate (albeit understandable) that they did not feel able
to share the report in this way.

On balance, I think the content (or rather the _lack_ of
content) of the Condign Report will have a positive effect on
ufology (at least in the UK).

The EMP Team deserve the gratitude of the ufological community
for obtaining this material. The report provides an excellent
opportunity for ufologists to put forward a case for scientists
to look at the relevant data. It remains to be seen whether this
opportunity will be grasped or (like most opportunities
presented to ufology) merely squandered.

The theory advanced in the Condign Report is certainly not the
final nail in ufology's coffin. It is a rather old and rusty
nail...

___________________

Footnotes:

[1] The MOD announcement is at:

http://tinyurl.com/nwwap

[3] The relevant Nature news item is online at:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060508/full/060508-6.html

[5] McDonald, James E in the Roush Hearing (the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics "Symposium
on Unidentified Flying Objects" on 1968.0729) at page 26 of the
transcript of the Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, Number 7.
Edited and annotated transcript presented by Fuller, John in his
"Aliens in the Skies" (1969). Complete transcript available free
online at the following links:

http://ncas.sawco.com/ufosymposium/contents.html

http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/contents.html

[6] The relevant documents can be viewed at the link below (or
purchased on CD from the same website):

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/browse.aspx

[7] See http://www.bluebookarchive.org

[8] A list of Project Blue Book "unknowns" prepared by Don
Berliner is online at:
http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/unknowns.htm

[9]Koi Chrono Core is a 1,800 page UFO Chronology (much of which
is taken up with references) that I have circulated in draft on
the Internet for anyone to download free of charge. The first
link (below) is to a zipped Word copy of the full Chronology
which is about 1.6 Mb: http://tinyurl.com/re7ae
[http://koi.com.virtuallystrange.net/Koi%2520Chrono%2520Core/koi
chronocoreh.zip]

The next link (below) is to an unzipped copy of the same Word
document. This is quite a bit bigger, so I wouldn't recommend
trying this one unless you have a rather fast internet
connection and don't have unzipping software (or if you, like me
until recently, don't know what zipped files are). It is about
9.1 Mb: http://tinyurl.com/oahe7
[http://koi.com.virtuallystrange.net/Koi%2520Chrono%2520Core/koi
%2520chrono%2520core.doc]

[10] The list of Project Blue Book "unknowns" is the basis of an
interesting project by Brad Sparks. Brad has annotated many of
the "unknowns" with basic details and references. This is a
valuable resource if you are researching the list of "unknowns".
See: http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/CufosBBUnknowns.doc

[11] Reprinted in "UFOs - Identified" at pages 55-56 (in Chapter
7) of the Random House hardback edition.

[22] Sagan, Carl in his "The Demon Haunted World" (1997) at page
84 (in Chapter 5) of the Headline softcover edition

[23] Campbell, Steuart in his book "The UFO Mystery Solved"
(1994) at page 184 (in Chapter 12) of the Explicit Books
softcover edition.

[24] Park, Robert in his book "Voodoo Science" (2000) at page
181 (in Chapter 9) of the Oxford University Press hardcover
edition .

[26] Condon Report ("Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects", Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor
(Editor) (1969)) at pages 871, 874-876, 877 (in Section 5,
Chapter 2 "UFOs: 1947-1968", by Edward U Condon) of the
uncorrected version submitted to the Air Force (with the same
page numbering in the 3 volume paperbound edition distributed by
the National Technical Information Service, US Department of
Commerce), at pages 520, 522-524 of the Vision hardback edition
(with the same page numbering in the Bantam paperback edition).
The first of these editions has the same page numbering as the
edition available free online at the following links:

http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/text/contents.htm

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/contents.html

[30] Stanton, L Jerome in his "Flying Saucers : Hoax or
Reality?" (1966) at page 98 (in Chapter 6) of the Belmont
paperback edition.

[31] Stanton, L Jerome in his "Flying Saucers : Hoax or
Reality?" (1966) at page 149 (in Chapter 9) of the Belmont
paperback edition.

[32] Greenfield, Irving in his "The UFO Report" (1967) at pages
122-123 (in Chapter 14), 136 (in Chapter 16) of the Lancer
paperback edition.

[37] Lloyd Mallan in "The Official Guide to UFOs" (1968) (edited
by the editors of Science & Mechanics) at page 124 (in
unnumbered chapter entitled "What Happened at Wanaque, N. J.?")
of the Ace paperback edition.

[38] Ruppelt, Edward J in his "The Report on Unidentified Flying
Objects" (1956) at pages 130-131 (in Chapter 10) of the original
17 chapter Doubleday hardback edition, at pages 175-176 of the
Gollancz hardback edition, at page 174 of the Ace paperback
edition, at pages 130-131 of the 1959 revised Doubleday 20
chapter hardback edition, at page 93 of the reprinted Source
Books softcover edition. The first of these editions (i.e. the
original 17 chapter hardback edition) has the same page
numbering as the version available free online at:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/Rufo.htm

[40] For discussion of "UFOs - Identified" by Philip J Klass
and/or his plasma theory, see:

(a) Barry, Bill in his "Ultimate Encounter" (1978) at pages 174-
179 (in Chapter 14) of the Corgi paperback edition.

(b) Clark, Jerome in his "The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the
Extraterrestrial" (1998) at page 369 (in an entry entitled
"McDonald, James Edward (1920-1971)") of the Visible Ink Press
softcover edition.

(c) Clark, Jerome in his "The UFO Encyclopedia: 1st edition:
Volume 3 - High Strangeness" (1996) at page 298 (in an entry
entitled "McDonald, James Edward (1920-1971)") of the
Omnigraphics hardback edition.

(d) Condon Report ("Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects", Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor
(Editor) (1969)) at pages 1190-1194 (in Section 6, Chapter 7
"Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of UFOs", by
Martin D Altschuler) of the uncorrected version submitted to the
Air Force (with the same page numbering in the 3 volume
paperbound edition distributed by the National Technical
Information Service, US Department of Commerce) at pages 748-750
of the Vision hardback edition (with the same page numbering in
the Bantam paperback edition). The first of these editions has
the same page numbering as the edition available free online at
the following links:

http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/text/contents.htm

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/contents.html

(e) Erskine, Allen Louis in his "Why Are They Watching Us?"
(1967) at pages 108-109 (in Chapter 13) of the Tower paperback
edition.

(f) Evans, Hilary in his "The Evidence for UFOs" (1983) at page
109 (in Chapter 6) of the Aquarian softcover edition.

(g) Fitzgerald, Randall in "The Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial
Encounters" (2001) (edited by Ronald Story) at page 622 (in an
entry entitled "UFOs Identified") of the New American Library
softcover edition, at page 608 of the pdf edition (with the same
page numbering in the Microsoft Word edition).

(h) Fitzgerald, Randall in "The Mammoth Encyclopedia of
Extraterrestrial Encounters" (2001) (edited by Ronald Story) at
pages 744-745 (in an entry entitled "UFOs Identified") of the
Robinson softcover edition.

(i) Fitzgerald, Randall in his "The Cosmic Test Tube" (1998) at
pages 297-299 (in Section 4) with a one sentence summary at page
376 (in the Guide To Books) of the Moonlake Media softcover
edition.

(j) Friedman, Stanton in an interview in "UFOs And The Alien
Presence: Six Viewpoints" (1991) (Edited by Michael Lindemann)
at pages 15-16 (in Chapter 1) of the 2002 Group softcover
edition.

(k) Greenfield, Irving in his "The UFO Report" (1967) at pages
122-123 (in Chapter 14), 136 (in Chapter 16) of the Lancer
paperback edition.

(l) Gurney, Gene (USAF Lt Col) and Gurney, Clare in their
"Unidentified Flying Objects" (1970) at pages 116-119 (in
Chapter 9) of the Abelard-Schuman hardback edition.

(m) Jacobs, David in his "The UFO Controversy in America" (1975)
at pages 216-217 (in Chapter 8) of the Indiana hardback edition,
page 192 of the Signet paperback edition.

(n) Klass, Philip J in his "UFOs Explained" (1974) at pages 94-
95 (in Chapter 10) of the Random House Hardback edition, at
pages 111-112 of Random House paperback edition.

(o) Machlin, Milt in his "The Total UFO Story" (1979) at pages
48-49 (in the Chapter 2) of the Dale paperback edition.

(p) Mallan, Lloyd in "The Official Guide to UFOs" (1968) (edited
by the editors of Science & Mechanics) at pages 123-125 (in
unnumbered chapter entitled "What Happened at Wanaque, N. J.?")
of the Ace paperback edition.

(q) McDonald, James E in the Roush Hearing (the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics "Symposium
on Unidentified Flying Objects" on 1968.0729) at page 26 of the
transcript of the Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, Number 7.
Edited and annotated transcript presented by Fuller, John in his
"Aliens in the Skies" (1969), with the relevant extract
appearing at pages 77-78 (in Chapter 2) of the Putnam hardback
edition. Complete transcript available free online at the
following links:

http://ncas.sawco.com/ufosymposium/contents.html

http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/contents.html

(r) Randle, Kevin D in his "The October Scenario" (1988) at page
135 (in Part 3, unnumbered section entitled "Solutions and
Theories") of the Berkley paperback edition.

(s) Ritchie, David in his "UFO : The Definitive Guide" (1994) at
pages 63-64 (in an entry entitled "electrical phenomena") of the
MJF hardback edition.

(t) Rutkowski, Chris in "UFO: 1947-1987" (1987) (edited by
Hilary Evans with John Spencer) at page 274 (in Chapter 4.3.2,
entitled "UFOs as Natural Phenomena") of the Fortean Tomes
softcover edition.

(u) Rutledge, Harley D in his "Project Identification" (1981) at
page 246 (in Chapter 20) of the Prentice-Hall hardback edition.

(v) Salisbury, Frank in his "The Utah UFO Display: A Biologist's
Report" (1974) at page 228 (in the Appendix entitled "The
Literature of Ufology") of the Devin Adair hardback edition.

(w) Schnabel, Jim in his "Dark White" (1994) at pages 93-96 (in
Chapter 6) of the Hamish Hamilton softcover edition.

(z) Sheaffer, Robert in his "The UFO Verdict" (1980) at page 209
(in Chapter 20) of the Prometheus softback edition.

(y) Sheaffer, Robert in his "UFO Sightings: The Evidence" (1998)
at page 270 (in Chapter 19) of the Prometheus hardback edition.

(z) Stanton, L Jerome in his "Flying Saucers : Hoax or Reality?"
(1966) at pages 20-21 (in Chapter 1), 98 (in Chapter 6), 149 (in
Chapter 9) of the Belmont paperback edition.

(aa) Steiger, Brad in his "Project Blue Book" (1976) at page 337
(forming part of Chapter 13) of the Ballantine Books paperback
edition.

(bb) Strickland, Joshua in his "Extra-terrestrials on Earth"
(1977) at pages 66-69 (in Chapter 5) of the Granada softcover
edition.

(cc) Time-Life (Editors of) in "The UFO phenomenon: Mysteries of
the Unknown" (1987) at pages 104-106 (in Chapter 3) of the Time-
Life Book hardback edition.

(dd) Vesco, Renato in his "Intercept Ufo" (Formerly published as
"Intercept - But Don't Shoot") (1971) at page 331 (in Chapter
10) of the Zebra paperback edition.

[41] Time-Life (Editors of) in "The UFO phenomenon: Mysteries of
the Unknown" (1987) at page 105 (in Chapter 3) of the Time-Life
Book hardback edition.

[42] Sheaffer, Robert in his "The UFO Verdict" (1980) at pages
8-10 (in Chapter 2) of the Prometheus softback edition.

[43] Sheaffer, Robert in his "UFO Sightings: The Evidence"
(1998) at pages 23-25 (in Chapter 2) of the Prometheus hardback
edition.

[44] Klass, Philip J in his "UFOs Explained" (1974) at pages 94-
95 (in Chapter 10) of the Random House Hardback edition, at
pages 111-112 of Random House paperback edition.

[45] Nickell, Joe and Fischer, John F in their "Mysterious
Realms" (1992) at pages 178-180, 189-191, 209 (in Chapter 11) of
the Prometheus hardback edition.

[47] For discussion of the Flying Saucer Working Party Report,
see the following:

(a) Bruni, Georgina and Pope, Nick in an online article, on Nick
Pope's website: http://www.nickpope.net/official_history.htm

(b) Clark, David and Roberts, Andy in an article entitled
"Britain's Secret 'X-Files' Revealed", available online on their
website at: http://www.flyingsaucery.com/mod/comment.htm

(c) Clarke, David and Roberts, Andy in their "Out of the
Shadows" (2002) at pages 77-96 (in Chapter 6) of the Piatkus
hardback edition.

(d) Pope, Nick in "The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial
Encounters" (2001) (edited by Ronald Story) at pages 241-243 (in
an entry entitled "Flying Saucer Working Party") of the Robinson
softcover edition.

(e) Randles, Jenny in "The Mammoth Encyclopedia of
Extraterrestrial Encounters" (2001) (edited by Ronald Story) at
page 137 (in an entry entitled "British Government Interest in
UFOs") of the Robinson softcover edition.

(f) Randles, Jenny in "The UFO Conspiracy" (1987) at pages 189-
190 (in Chapter 31) of the Barnes & Noble hardback edition.

[50] Hill, Paul R in his "Unconventional Flying Objects : A
Scientific Analysis" (1995) at 53-54 (in Section III) of the
Hampton Roads softcover edition.

[51] The University of Colorado signed the relevant contract
with the Air Force for the Condon report on 6 October 1966[see
references for Koi Chrono Core 1966.1006], and this fact was
announced to the press the following day [see references for Koi
Chrono Core 1966.1007]).

[52] Roth, J Reece "Ball lightning as a route to fusion energy",
PROC IEEE 13TH SYMP ON FUSION ENG. Vol. 2, pp. 1407-1411. 1989.

[53] Condon Report ("Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects", Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor
(Editor) (1969)) at page 1192 (in Section 6, Chapter 7
"Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of UFOs", by
Martin D Altschuler) of the uncorrected version submitted to the
Air Force (with the same page numbering in the 3 volume
paperbound edition distributed by the National Technical
Information Service, US Department of Commerce) at page 748 of
the Vision hardback edition (with the same page numbering in the
Bantam paperback edition). The first of these editions has the
same page numbering as the edition available free online at the
following links:

http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/text/contents.htm

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/contents.html

[54] Condon Report ("Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects", Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor
(Editor) (1969)) at pages 1193-1194 (in Section 6, Chapter 7
"Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of UFOs", by
Martin D Altschuler) of the uncorrected version submitted to the
Air Force (with the same page numbering in the 3 volume
paperbound edition distributed by the National Technical
Information Service, US Department of Commerce) at pages 749-750
of the Vision hardback edition (with the same page numbering in
the Bantam paperback edition). The first of these editions has
the same page numbering as the edition available free online at
the following links:

http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/text/contents.htm

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/contents.html

[55] Campbell, James M in Chapters 3 and 6 of his book
"Ufology". The text of the relevant book is available online at:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/ufochap3.htm

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/ufochap6.htm

[56] Klass, Philip J in "The UFO Invasion" (1997) (edited by
Kendrick Frazier, Barry Karr and Joe Nickell) at pages 34-40 of
the Prometheus hardback edition (part of Chapter 2 at pages 29-
43, "The Condon UFO Study"). The relevant chapter is a reprint
of an article in the Skeptical Inquirer 10, number 4 (Summer
1986).

[58] The relevant Washington Post article is summarised by
Whitley Strieber in his introduction to the Dell paperback
edition of the "UFO Briefing Document" (1995) by Berliner, Don
and Galbraith, Marie and Hunees, Antonio, at page 9 of the Dell
paperback edition (Introduction).

[59] "Jenzano Makes Own 'Flying Saucers' at Planetarium", 17
April 1966, in the Morning Herald newspaper of Durham, North
Carolina. The relevant article is quoted by Philip J Klass in
his "UFOs - Identified" (1968) at pages 68-69 (in Chapter 8) of
the Random House hardback edition.

[60] Friedman, Stanton J in the Roush Hearing (the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics "Symposium
on Unidentified Flying Objects" on 1968.0729) at page 217 of the
transcript of the Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, Number 7.
Edited and annotated transcript presented by Fuller, John in his
"Aliens in the Skies" (1969). Complete transcript available free
online at the following links:

http://ncas.sawco.com/ufosymposium/contents.html

http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/contents.html

[61] Carl Sagan in "UFO's: A Scientific Debate" (1972) (edited
by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page) at pages 273-274 (in Chapter
14) of the Norton paperback edition.

Read more articles on this topic:

Project CONDIGN (UK)