RR0/rr0.org

<!--#include virtual="/header-start.html" -->
<title>"Secret" Air Force Study Says UFOs Are Real</title>
<meta
    content="https://web.archive.org/web/20050424111736/https://mimufon.org/1970+articles/SecretAirForceStudySaysUFOsAreReal.htm"
    name="url"/>
<meta content="Friedman, Stanton T." name="author"/>
<meta content="Slate, Ann" name="author"/>
<meta content="Saga's UFO Report, p. 28, vol. 1, n° 5" name="copyright"/>
<!--#include virtual="/header-end.html" -->
<p>In <time>1953</time>, the U.S. Air Force quietly contracted a noted research group to analyze more than 2,000 flying
  saucer sighting reports collected in Air Force files. The final report of this intensive two-year study was called
  Project Blue Book Special Report #14, and it indicated that UFOs weren't the mirage the Air Force hoped they were.</p>
<p> Rather than accept the grim conclusion that a high percentage of the strange objects in our skies could not be
  identified, the AF attempted to make PBBSR #14 "disappear," first by distorting the results in official press releases
  and then by making the report unavailable.</p>
<p> These tactics might have succeeded were it not for the tenacity of Dr. Leon Davidson of the Los Alamos Scientific
  Laboratory who believed that the public had a right to read the unexpurgated version of Report #14. What he was up
  against is best illustrated by reviewing the history of the UFO problem.</p>
<p> During the year before Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting over Mount Rainier, which resulted in the term "flying
  saucer," Sweden had reported a flurry of unidentified aerial objects. Because Sweden was near the Soviet Union,
  official concern was that UFOs might be a new foreign military development similar to that of the German V-2 rockets
  of WW II. The investigation was turned over to the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force
  Base in Dayton, Ohio.</p>
<p> The primary mission of ATIC was to synthesize existing scientific developments overseas on the basis of published
  technological literature. These syntheses then were projected into a meaningful picture of the technical capabilities
  of other nations. ATIC, for example, later did the best job of predicting when the U.S.S.R. would come up with the
  A-bomb (they correctly stated it would be in 1949). </p>
<p>The UFO project was given the code name SIGN, which was later changed to GRUDGE, and finally to BLUE BOOK. It
  collected and evaluated all available facts concerning flying saucer reports. Since no one was thinking seriously in
  terms of space travel at that time, it was logically assumed that these strange vehicles might be foreign military
  devices.</p>
<p> One such puzzling case was a sighting by a DC-3 pilot and copilot during a flight in July, 1948. Heading toward them
  was an object without wings. As it passed to the starboard they saw two rows of lighted windows and a 50-foot trail of
  fire out behind it. The object suddenly went into a steep climb and disappeared into the clouds. The craft was also
  observed by a passenger on board the DC-3. </p>
<p>After a compilation of the first series of reports, ATIC ruled out the probability of UFOs being foreign military
  devices because of the extreme variance in their characteristics. To quiet the concerned public, AF press releases
  became fairly standard. The only essential changes were the dates. </p>
<p>According to the AF, all evidence and analyses indicated that reports of UFOs were the result of:</p>
<ul>
  <li> Misinterpretation of various conventional objects; </li>
  <li>A mild form of mass hysteria; and </li>
  <li>Hoaxes. </li>
</ul>
<p>While it was officially admitted that a number of reported sightings had remained unknown and did not come under any
  of these three major headings, the AF attitude was that if more data had been obtained, these sightings could be
  associated with familiar things such as meteors, light aberrations, etc.</p>
<p> In Spring, 1953, an AF form letter released by the Office of Public Information in Washington, D.C., stated the
  following under a paragraph headed, "What Saucers Are Not." </p>
<blockquote>
  <p>"The Air Force has stated in the past, and reaffirms at the present time, that these unidentified aerial phenomena
    are not a secret weapon, missile or aircraft developed by the United States. None of the three military departments
    nor any other agency in the government is conducting experiments, classified or otherwise, with flying objects which
    could be a basis for the reported phenomena. As far as is known there is nothing in them that is associated with
    material or vehicles that are directed against the United States, from another country or from other planets."</p>
</blockquote>
<p> Thus the official tone was set, a neatly tied package for the taxpayer, that explained in effect that there wasn't
  really anything of significance zooming around overhead. If a "few" unknowns had sifted to the bottom of the bucket,
  they could be discounted. That, anyway, was the public statement.</p>
<p> But a classified AF regulation known as AFR 200-2, titled INTELLIGENCE, was issued in 1954 and was followed by four
  pages of methodology on UFO reporting. The paragraph titled, "Release of Facts," reads:</p>
<blockquote>
  <p> "Headquarters USAF will release summaries of evaluated data which will inform the public on this subject. In
    response to local inquiries, it is permissible to inform news media representatives on UFOs when the object is
    positively identified as a familiar object. . . </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This same section concludes with the order that if the object is not explainable, the only information to be released
  is that ATIC is analyzing it.</p>
<p> ATIC was still trying to analyze the 1947 case of a farmer and his two sons who'd seen a blue hat-shaped object
  hedge hopping along the ground, shooting flames. The details of the 20-foot diameter craft were extremely clear as
  they viewed it against the backdrop of a canyon wall at the close range of 300 feet. The "hat" made a swishing sound
  as it followed the contour of the ground and then took off, disturbing the trees as it passed overhead. </p>
<p>Dr. Leon Davidson had gotten in on the UFO ground floor, about the time the "green fireball" wave of 1948 hit the
  Southwest. Employed at Los Alamos Laboratory, he joined an informal group of scientists and engineers there who were
  studying the UFO problem. This group, called the Los Alamos Astrophysical Association, had official support and had
  access to the classified Project GRUDGE files and reports. </p>
<p>It wasn't long before Davidson was believing that the AF investigation of saucers was a cover-up. Later, as a
  volunteer in the White Plains, N.Y., Filter Center of the Ground Observer Corps, he was dismayed by the treatment
  accorded to reports of strange objects. He began writing to the Secretary of Defense and other officials.</p>
<p> "I pointed out that the Air Force's attitude of ridiculing and operationally ignoring all saucer sightings could
  allow an enemy to send aircraft or missiles through our defenses easily, merely by putting enough flashing. lights on
  them to cause them to be reported as flying saucers," Davidson said. </p>
<p>Suddenly, in 1952, there was an unprecedented increase in UFO sightings. An alarmed public wasn't going to accept
  officialdom's opinion that the odd-shaped craft with pulsing lights, making right angle turns at tremendous speeds,
  were just the product of their over-stimulated imaginations.</p>
<p> An instrument technician driving toward an AF Base at 7 p.m. was especially certain he wasn't imagining the crazy
  gyration of the disc he stopped to watch for 15 minutes in December of that year. It made 45-degree turns, darted back
  and forth and then took off in level flight at high speeds, rolling three times and showing alternate white and red
  sides. Project Blue Book sightings jumped from a reported 169 in 1951 to 1,501 in 1952.</p>
<p> ATIC took the problem to nearby Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio. This is a well-respected nonprofit
  contract research and development agency that employs a broad range of technologists. Although most noted for
  developing the Xerox, BMI primarily does contract work for industry. Because it's accustomed to handling a volume of
  data and a variety of problems, the mating between BMI and ATIC was a natural one.</p>
<p> The outcome of this study was to be called Project Blue Book Special Report #14, a review and conclusion drawn from
  all the preceding classified progress reports of the project called Blue Book Reports 1 through 12, along with other
  AF data on UFOs. </p>
<p>By setting up precise criteria and processing them through a computer, ATIC hoped the analysis of AF sightings from
  1947 through 1952 (a total of 2,199 cases) would fall into some neatly reassuring and explainable categories. This
  anticipated result never occurred! Battelle kept playing with the data to make it come out right so the AF would be
  happy, but still it wouldn't fit.</p>
<p> It should be noted that this independent analysis represents the largest and most comprehensive scientific and
  official study on flying saucers ever made. While the data is old, is has never been superceded. </p>
<p>BMI didn't study reports that mentioned aliens associated with UFOs because there weren't any. Edward Ruppelt who
  managed the ATIC Blue Book Office admitted he'd literally thrown out all sightings that mentioned "creatures." No one
  knows how many sightings of this type were disposed of but this clearly was an inappropriate thing to do. In a
  statistical analysis, the percentage of unidentified unknowns from this segment of the reports might have proved much
  higher than in the non-humanoid category. </p>
<p>Another requirement discovered after the study was well under way was the need for defining a factor that related to
  the maneuvers of the unknown objects. By ''maneuvers'' was meant the well-known characteristics of hovering, sharp
  turns, rapid speed changes, wobbly flight, pendulum-like descent, etc. While Battelle determined this factor to be
  critical, they found it impracticable to go back and reevaluate all the original data already processed. Therefore, no
  code for maneuverability was included, which automatically omitted antics such as were witnessed by a flight sergeant
  in Korea on June 6, 1952. The UFO appeared over an Air Force Base at eight in the morning, spinning, tumbling,
  leveling out only to stop momentarily and then shoot straight up. As the sergeant watched with another observer, it
  disappeared into the sun, only to reappear and fly back and forth across the sun. </p>
<p>While it looked like the AF held several good cards in a stacked deck, the impartial IBM computer kept raising the
  bet. </p>
<p>The research group set up certain precise categories of identification by which to sift out the unknowns. These
  were:</p>
<ul>
  <li> Astronomical </li>
  <li>Aircraft </li>
  <li>Balloon </li>
  <li>Other </li>
  <li>Unknown </li>
  <li>Insufficient Information </li>
</ul>
<p>The category designated "Other" included birds, clouds, kites, rockets, psychological manifestations, etc.</p>
<table class="right ">
  <tr>
    <th> Qualité</th>
    <th> Nombre</th>
    <th>% du Total</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Excellente</td>
    <td> 213</td>
    <td> 9,7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Bonne</td>
    <td>757</td>
    <td> 34,5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Douteuse</td>
    <td>794</td>
    <td> 36,0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Médiocre</td>
    <td>435</td>
    <td> 19,8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><strong>Total </strong></td>
    <td><strong> 2199 </strong></td>
    <td><strong> 100,0</strong></td>
  </tr>
</table>
<p>Sightings were further classified according to the experience of the observer, and the consistency, completeness, and
  quality of the report. Therefore, reliability ratings of Excellent, Good, Poor, and Doubtful were assigned. For a
  sighting to be labeled Excellent meant it involved a good observer, under optimum conditions, who saw something more
  than just a light flashing by in the sky.</p>
<p>After a preliminary identification, a second identification was made by another member of the panel composed of two
  BMI consultants and two from ATIC. If two members labeled an object a Known, the IBM card was then category-coded. It
  took agreement of all four members to code an object as an Unknown.</p>
<p>One case, from March 1950, judged Unknown and listed as Serial 1550.00, concerned a AF Reserve captain and an airline
  captain who were piloting a commercial plane. Both crew members watched a circular object pass in front of their plane
  a half-mile away. A brilliant light blinking at three flashes per second was sighted on the top of the strange craft
  and a fluorescent purple glow appeared through each of the nine to 12 portholes on the bottom. Visibility was
  excellent and the object's speed was judged to be more than 1,000 miles per hour.</p>
<table class="left">
  <caption>
    Table 1 - Categorization of UFO Sighting Reports
  </caption>
  <tr>
    <th>Category</th>
    <th>Number</th>
    <th>%</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Astronomical</td>
    <td>479</td>
    <td>21,8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Aircraft</td>
    <td>474</td>
    <td>21,6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Balloon</td>
    <td>339</td>
    <td>15,4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Other</td>
    <td>233</td>
    <td>10,6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>UNKNOWN</td>
    <td>434</td>
    <td>19,7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Insufficient Information</td>
    <td>240</td>
    <td>10,9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><strong>Total</strong></td>
    <td><strong>2199 </strong></td>
    <td><strong>100 % </strong></td>
  </tr>
</table>
<p>It's important to note that the Unknowns were not those sightings where data was missing. Insufficient Information
  was a separate and distinct category.</p>
<table class="right">
  <caption>
    Tableau 2 - Quality Distribution of UNKNOWNS
  </caption>
  <tr>
    <th> Quality</th>
    <th> UNKNOWNS</th>
    <th>% of Group</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Excellent</td>
    <td>71</td>
    <td> 33,3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Good</td>
    <td> 188</td>
    <td> 24,8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Doubtful</td>
    <td> 103</td>
    <td>13,0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> Poor</td>
    <td>72</td>
    <td> 16,6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><strong> Total </strong></td>
    <td><strong> 434</strong></td>
    <td><strong>19,7 % </strong></td>
  </tr>
</table>
<p>If you refer to Table 2 of the Distribution Chart, reproduced exactly from Report #14, you'll note that in the
  Excellent rat ing, comprising 213 reports, there are a staggering 71 Unknowns-33.3 percent of the best sightings! In
  the Good rating, Un knowns claimed a total of 24.8 percent! The better the quality of the sighting, the more likely it
  was to be labeled Unknown!</p>
<p> Everyone but the computer was astonished. Other charts were constructed showing the frequency of object sightings in
  relation to the sun. It was hoped some of the Unknowns might have been caused by an atmospheric phenomenon known as a
  mock sun. But the histogram dramatically showed no increase of Unknowns relative to the Knowns near sunset or sunrise,
  ruling out that possibility!</p>
<p>The panel decided to dig deeper but using the statistical method known as the Chi Square Test, reasoning that if some
  of the characteristics of the Unknowns were the same as those of the Knowns, it then would be safe to say that the
  Unknowns essentially had been the same objects as the Knowns. Thus the flying saucer would no longer be a topic of
  conversation.</p>
<p> Cross-checking was done on the following factors:</p>
<ul>
  <li>Color</li>
  <li>Shape</li>
  <li>Number</li>
  <li>Duration of Observation</li>
  <li>Speed</li>
  <li> Light Brightness</li>
</ul>
<p>Blue Book Report #14 states: "In five of the six cases, the probability is less than one percent that the
  distributions are the same."</p>
<p>This means that it was highly unlikely (less than one percent) that the Unknowns came from the same population of
  sighting reports as the Knowns. The Unknowns continued to defy conventional explanation! (Light brightness had been
  ruled out as too nebulous to be of any real value.)</p>
<p>The completion of Report #14 presented the AF with a problem. The AF had been selling the public quite another bill
  of flying saucer goods! While the cut-off date on the project was to be Dec. 31, 1952, it was decided to process
  sighting reports for 1953, 1954, and the first six months of 1955. During this last six-month period, Unknowns ranked
  three percent and that three percent is the only figure ever stated officially by the USAF with regard to the entire
  study!</p>
<p>All previous BB Reports had been classified, but the AF did not classify Report #14. This probably was a
  psychological maneuver on its part to give the illusion that the government wasn't hiding anything about flying
  saucers. What they did, however, was to make the report unavailable.</p>
<p>In October, 1955, a cleverly phrased, widely-distributed press release from the Department of Defense was issued,
  completely distorting the Battelle findings.</p>
<blockquote>
  <p><q>AIR FORCE RELEASES STUDY ON UN IDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS</q></p>
  <p><q>The results of an investigation begun by the Air Force in 1947 into the field of Unidentified Aerial Objects
    (so-called flying saucers) were released by the Air Force Today.</q></p>
  <p><q>No evidence of the existence of the popularly-termed 'flying saucers' was found.</q></p>
  <p><q>The report was based on study and analysis by a private scientific group under the supervision of the Air
    Technical Intelligence Center at Dayton, Ohio. Since the instigation of the investigation more than seven years ago,
    methods and procedures have been so refined that of the 131 sightings reported during the first four months of 1955,
    only three percent were listed as unknown. (A summary of the report is attached.)</q></p>
  <p><q>Commenting on this report, Secretary of the Air Force Donald A. Quarles said: 'On the basis of this study we
    believe that no objects such as those popularly described as flying saucers have overflown the United States. I feel
    certain that even the unknown three percent could have been explained as conventional phenomena or illusions if more
    complete observational data had been available.' </q></p>
</blockquote>
<p> Quarles then discussed aircraft of unusual configurations, such as the disc-shaped aircraft on the drawing board at
  AVRO in Canada and other vertical-rising planes being developed, which should not be mistakenly reported as flying
  saucers.</p>
<p> Naturally the public was left to conclude that only three percent of all evaluated objects sighted proved to be
  unidentified since no other statistic was given. Yet the truth was that highly-qualified scientists using the best
  data processing methods didn't know what 19.7 percent of UFOs really were! The fact that BMI had set up an
  Insufficient information category flatly contradicts Quarles's statement that all that was needed to fully explain
  away flying saucers was more data.</p>
<p>The press release stated that a summary of Report #14 was attached, not the unclassified full report itself.
  Battelle's conclusions were equally misleading; the last paragraph of its summary reads:</p>
<blockquote>
  <p><q>Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that
    reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments
    outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge. It is emphasized that there has been a complete lack of
    any valid evidence of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.</q></p>
</blockquote>
<p>While those gentlemen might have wished to examine a piece of fuselage, a jettisoned propulsion system unit or a
  crashed UFO itself, this contradicted their statement that the lack of physical matter was not assumed to be concrete
  proof that flying saucers didn't exist. It should further be noted that propulsion systems capable of traveling to the
  stars are not outside the range of present day technology, we just haven't built them yet.</p>
<p>This kind of faulty reasoning is similar to the statement that because more than 99 percent of the
  naturally-occurring isotopes are incapable of supporting a nuclear chain reaction by themselves, it can be concluded
  that the process of nuclear fission is impossible. In reality, only one naturally-occurring isotope, U-235, can be
  used by itself to create a nuclear chain reaction. If you find one white crow, it's safe to assume that not all crows
  are black. Report #14 statistically provided an entire flock of white crows but because the birds didn't leave
  feathers all over the ground, seeing them flying overhead didn't count as evidence of their existence.</p>
<p>Dr. Leon Davidson wanted to see a copy of Report #14, which was now nowhere in unclassified sight. After months of
  correspondence with governmental agencies, he was told that the report was not generally distributed because the cost
  was prohibitive. If he wished to see a copy, he could view it at AF offices in Washington, New York or Los
  Angeles.</p>
<p>This official excuse about the high cost of reproducing the 315-page report is meaningless to anyone who has reviewed
  catalogs of U.S. government publications. The U.S. government is the world's biggest publisher. A comprehensive report
  on UFOs, because of the great public interest, should have at least ranked along with the widely-distributed How to
  Get Rid of Bedbugs catalog.</p>
<p>After Davidson had studied Report #14 and noted the obvious subterfuge in the concealment of its real findings, he
  decided to reprint the report at his own expense as a public service. He wrote to more government agencies until,
  finally, a rather terse note from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense indicated he was getting
  somewhere.</p>
<p>It read in part, "Regarding reproduction of the Blue Book, the Department of Defense considers this to be your own
  private affair and neither denies nor approves your plan. I trust this satisfactorily answers your questions."</p>
<p>It did. Davidson photocopied PBBSR #14 and made it available to the public.</p>
<p>Since its publication there has been a total lack of reference to the report by UFO authorities. Dr. Donald Menzel,
  well-known astronomer and astrophysicist, formerly head of the Smithsonian Observatory at Harvard, is decidedly
  anti-flying saucers. He's published two books and several articles trying to explain away UFOs. In his second book,
  published in 1963, he attributes about 30 classic sightings to atmospheric phenomena. He claims he had full access to
  all the AF and Blue Book files. Yet he never mentions Report #14 or the 434 Unknowns or even the 71 Excellent
  Unknowns. This is unfortunate because his books have turned off a lot of scientists once curious about the UFO
  problem.</p>
<p>Dr. J. Allen Hynek, head of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern University and former AF UFO consultant began to
  take a more active interest in flying saucers in 1966, trying to re-stimulate scientific focus on UFOs, yet in his
  many printed articles and professional and congressional testimonies, the only time Hynek referred to Report #14 was
  in a critical review of the Condon Report. It appeared in the April, 1969, issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
  where, after expressing the hope for a more effective study of the perplexing UFO phenomenon, he concludes:</p>
<blockquote>
  <p><q>To this end, care should be taken that the files of the Condon Committee not be destroyed, as reportedly were
    the data in a 1953 investigation of UFOs by another Air Force contractor whose identity was classified and whose
    data led to Report No. 14 of Project Blue Book</q></p>
</blockquote>
<p>he last AF-sponsored UFO effort resulted in the quasi-scientific University of Colorado Study in 1966. Because of the
  large sum of money involved, this contracting should have gone out on open-bidding; it never did. Dr. Edward Condon,
  who headed this research group was advised of the significant findings of Report #14. He said he read the data with
  great interest, but never again referred to it. Condon publicly mentioned BB Reports 1 through 12 in the Colorado
  report and devoted an entire chapter to government involvement in the study of UFOs. The Condon Report covered 117
  cases in contrast to the 2,199 sightings covered in Report #14.</p>
<p>As there was much public concern about UFO secrecy in government at that time, the AF got off the hook by cleverly
  passing the buck for review of the Condon Committee findings to the National Academy of Sciences. It should be pointed
  out that the erudite Academy elects its own members (usually older outstanding scientists) and maintains a closed
  membership of less than 1,000. New members usually are invited to join only when a "chair" is vacated following a
  death.</p>
<p>While it is doubtful that this scholarly body would be influenced by official AF opinion regarding flying saucers, it
  is noteworthy that both Condon and Menzel are Academy members!</p>
<p>The Academy appointed an 11-man panel (average age 65) and handed it the 1,465-page typewritten Condon Report on Nov.
  15, 1968. The panel had to rapidly familiarize itself with the UFO subject. It did so by reviewing the scientific
  publications authored by its fellow Academy member, Dr. Menzel, along with several other points of view published by
  persons they considered technically trained. The statistical computations of Report #14 are not referred to in the
  listed references of their crash course on UFOs.</p>
<p>On Jan. 6, 1969, the panel met and agreed with the methods and approach used by the Condon Committee, concluding that
  continued study of UFOs was not likely to benefit science. Then they went one step further.</p>
<blockquote>
  <p><q>On the basis of present knowledge the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial
    visitations by intelligent beings." </q></p>
</blockquote>
<p> Considering the panelists' lack of prior scientific contact with UFO data, the bulky study, which had to be read,
  and the social demands over a busy holiday season prevented any cross-checking of Condon's cases. The Academy
  endorsement seems as hasty as the Colorado study itself was superficial!</p>
<p>The world's largest scientific organization concerned with space exploration, the American Institute of Aeronautics
  and Astronautics (AIAA) stated it couldn't find a basis for Dr. Condon's appraisal of the flying saucer as a
  non-contributor to scientific research. After carefully studying the Colorado data, the AIAA noted that 30 percent of
  the 117 cases examined in detail could not be identified. The AIAA said: "The opposite conclusion could have been
  drawn from the content of the report, namely that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases should
  arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."</p>
<p>The group also found no convincing basis for Dr. Condon's assumption that no intelligent life from outside our solar
  system would visit Earth for the next 10,000 years.</p>
<p>Until a few years ago, the U.S. Air Force Academy included a rather good chapter on UFOs in the text used for the
  Physics 370 course. Along with a review of the existence of flying Saucers in ancient legends, several modern day
  sightings were described, including the Zamora case in New Mexico and the Barney and Betty Hill incident. Students
  were urged to keep an open mind and not to deny the possibility of alien control of UFOs on the basis of preconceived
  notions. Suggested reading in the references had included David son's privately published edition of Project Blue Book
  Special Report #14.</p>
<p>But cadets taking the Physics 370 course at the USAF Academy in the Fall semester of 1970 received a revised UFO
  chapter in their text that was totally different than the former one. It was based essentially on Dr. Condon's
  conclusions and the findings of Project Blue Book as determined by the official press releases. Conspicuously absent
  was any reference to Report #14. Obviously the line of reasoning Condon employed when presenting his views in the
  December, 1969, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists had been adopted by the AF, Academy.</p>
<blockquote>
  <p><q>Where corruption of children's minds is at stake," Condon stated, "I do not believe in freedom of the press or
    freedom of speech. In my view, publishers who publish or teachers who teach any of the pseudo-sciences as
    established truth should, on being found guilty, be publicly horsewhipped and forever banned from further activity
    in these usually honorable professions. Truth and children's minds are too precious for us to allow them to be
    abused by charlatans.</q></p>
</blockquote>
<p> Condon has further quipped that we need a National Magic Agency which might include the future scientific study of
  UFOs, "if any."</p>
<p>We've seen enough seduction of the public into believing that further investigation into UFOs would be of no
  consequence. We've been beguiled into accepting the AF line rather than seeing the actual data, which has been
  deceptively concealed.</p>
<p>Of the many millions of dollars appropriated to the AF to examine the flying saucer problem, only one study, PBBSR
  #14, was scientifically performed, and this was the one the AF tried to hang in the closet along with some other
  "family" skeletons, until Dr. Leon Davidson peeked through the door. And while Re port #14 has revealed what UFOs were
  not, it's about time we found out exactly what they really are! </p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.html" -->