Many of my colleagues in the UFO field believe we have moved into Condon 2.0, meaning, that we are presented with a scientific study of UFOs with the conclusions already drawn. The quotes were published in the January 26, 1967, edition of the Elmira Star-Gazette, newspaper which said:
Condon even expressed his belief about UFOs and what the ultimate conclusions would be at a meeting in Corning, New York, on January 25, 1967, where he told the audience that UFO’s “are not the business of the Air Force… It is my inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this business. My attitude is that there’s nothing to it… but I’m not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year.”
As more evidence of this, there is the Hippler letter which was a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hippler to Dr. Robert Low of the Condon Committee. It laid out exactly what the Air Force wanted the “scientific study” of UFOs to conclude. You can read about that here:
It is also reminiscent of the 1953 CIA sponsored Robertson Panel that suggested the military release information about mysterious UFO sightings and then explain them. It didn’t matter then, and doesn’t matter now, if the explanation fits the facts, as long as the media and the public accepted the answers as legitimate. Their final report said, in part:
4. In order most effectively to strengthen the national facilities for the timely recognition and the appropriate handling of true indications of hostile action, and to minimize the concomitant dangers alluded to above, the Panel recommends:
a. That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired;
b. That the national security agencies institute policies on intelligence, training, and public education designed to prepare the material defenses and the morale of the country to recognize most promptly and to react most effectively to true indications of hostile intent or action.
We suggest that these aims may be achieved by an integrated program designed to reassure the public of the total lack of evidence of Inimical forces behind the phenomenon, to train personnel to recognize and reject false indications quickly and effectively, and to strengthen regular channels for the evaluation of and prompt reaction to true indications of hostile measures.
You can, as always, read more about the Robertson Panel and its conclusions here:
A wonderful example of this demystifying is the Levelland sightings of November 2, 1957. Multiple witnesses, at multiple locations, independently reported their cars stalled at the close approach of a UFO. The witnesses were able to watch the UFO for several minutes and when it disappeared, the stalled cars could be restarted. The official explanation, one that still stands today, was ball lightning, a phenomenon that was more theory than fact in 1957 and is still controversial today. There is no way that ball lightning, even if it does exist, explains the sightings. I have published an in depth look at the sightings in the book I cleverly named Levelland.
You can read about the Condon Committee and its reasons for ignoring the Levelland sightings here:
There is more information here about Levelland. One of the most informative articles can be found here:
And now we learn, through sources that have yet to be identified, that many of those 144 sightings mentioned in DoD’s first report to Congress about UAPs, is the result of Chinese drones. We are told that DoD was reluctant to mention this earlier because they didn’t want the Chinese, or the intelligence officers in other countries, to know that we had detected their drones… as if that wouldn’t be obvious to anybody when the New Yorks Times reported the story and the videos were released. They would have read about the confusion and the investigation into what had approached our ships. They would have known it was their drones that had been detected, which means there was no real reason not to release the information that we suspected drones.
Drones have become the weather balloons of the 21st century.
According to the official spokesman, “…of the cases that have been resolved, most have proved to be either errant junk in the sky, like balloons, or surveillance activity… Incidents recorded in the past year… have turned out to have ordinary, earthbound explanations.”
The video, known as the Gimbal, was a problem related to the classified image sensor, that made it look as if the object was moving in a strange way.
In May, the Pentagon said that the images released showing green triangles were actually drones photographed through night-vision lenses. I had reported on that months ago. You can read about my analysis here:
I predicted that we would see this sort of thing as they began their investigation. We all know, and we all agree, that 95% of all UFO sightings are of mundane things. We know that a single witness sighting doesn’t contribute much to our knowledge, but that there are many good sightings that have multiple witnesses and multiple chains of evidence. I have said, and others have said, “It only takes one.”
One such sighting was reported in the latest issue of The MUFON Journal. MUFON Utah assistant state director Brian Lindley provided the information. A man and a woman were hiking and while taking a break, he saw a bright, shiny object in the deep blue sky. He determined that it was hovering and said there was a very strong wind that didn’t seem to affect it.
They watched the object for several minutes and were unable to identify it. As it began to descend, again against the wind, he grabbed her cell phone and began recording. He followed it until it dropped down to the same level as the mountains and he lost sight of it.
Lindley wrote in his analysis, “I believe I can rule out a mylar balloon. It’s possible it could have been a drone, but it would have to be a high-end one that could fly in severe conditions… I am closing this case with the disposition “Unknown – UAV.”
Interestingly, Lindley mentioned both a mylar balloon and a drone, which seems to be the go-to answer for those desiring a terrestrial explanation. In this case those answers were rejected but we’ll see more of them in the near future.
And, I suppose I really shouldn’t end this discussion without pointing to many good multiple witness sightings that do involve multiple chains of evidence. The Washington National sightings of July 1952 that involved multiple radars at separate locations, both military and civilian pilots, and dozens of people on the ground. The Air Force said it was temperature inversions but that explanation simply does not cover all the reported sightings and other observations. I have updated my book on the Washington Nationals and it will be available soon.
There are the Rendleshaw Forest sightings made by Air Force personnel that have defied explanation. There are hundreds of cases of the UFOs stalling cars and affecting other electric equipment such as the sightings in France in 1954, and the series of sightings here, in the United States in 1957, and thousands of landing trace cases that provide another chain of evidence.
Although some of the recent articles have been more or less benign, others seem to have suggested hostile content, that is anti-UFO content. They usually include the phrase that there is no evidence of alien visitation but that is not accurate. There is some very interesting evidence, but given the tone of the DoD statements, NASA statements, and what newspapers report, I fear we are going down the same path we have followed for three-quarters of a century. The “final” answer will be that there is no evidence of alien visitation because they’ll ignore the past and obscure the future. In two years or ten years, we’ll be right back where we started.