Synthèse d'une allocution du Dupont Chapter of The
Scientific Research Society of America (RESA),
Wilmington,
Delaware, 12 février 1969.
James E. McDonald, The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona
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 specifiquement 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.