From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:20:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:42:23 -0400
Subject: Re: New Mexico Governor Rekindles Roswell - Kaeser


>From: Christopher Allan <cda.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:25:11 +0100
>Subject: Re: New Mexico Governor Rekindles Roswell
>A brief submission:

>A good account and discussion of the Chiles-Whitted case is in
>the Condon Report p.567-582, in Process of Perception,
>Conception & Reporting, by William K. Hartmann. Worth reading.

>Don't forget that the one passenger witness did not describe the
>UFO in the same detail as did the pilots.

>Hartmann fully convinced me that the C-W case was not a
>spaceship, but I agree that ETHers will never accept the answer
>given, especially if they regard the whole Condon Report as a
>whitewash.

>However, in the Battelle Study (Blue Book report 14) it is
>listed as one of the 12 "good unknowns". But Battelle did no
>investigation whatever.

Actually, a number of UFO researchers like to use the validity
of the Condon Report as a test to see if someone is really
paying attention or whether they simply want a crutch to hang
their beliefs on. But we would probably disagree on how it's
being applied.

However, I would suggest that it would be better to back and
read the actual Condon Report, as opposed to one person's
interpretation, unless you want a limited perspective. It's
pretty clear that the conclusion of the Condon Report was not
fully supported by the documentation (as limited and targetted
as it could be) within the actual full Report. Others far more
knowledgeable than I have written about the flaws of the Condon
Report, and I'll refer to articles if there's interest.  One of
the primary flaws seems to have been the fact that the Report's
conclusions were solidified by Condon before the actual evidence
was gathered and presented. He was then able to frame the type
of evidence that he would allow, so that his conclusions could
be supported. This is the same problem that I find with many of
the devoted believers on both sides of this debate.

This thread seems to be more of a philosophy of science
discussion, rather than a discussion of the evidence, but if
eveyone's having fun... what the heck.


Steve