ufo - UFOs at close sight: Condign report stupidities

The Ministry of Defense, U-K, asked one anonymous guy to write a "report on UFOs" to assess whether UFOs are a Defense issue or not. The guy put up more than 400 pages together by simply reading existing skeptic literature. Then some ufologists managed to get the secret report. In 2006 they gave it to TVs and newspapers, and soon, all over the world, in the Press, headlines said that a "scientific study" has proven that UFOs don't exist. No newspapermen had asked any review by any ufologist, and the ufologist that gave the report to the Press did not care either to give other ufologist a chance to review the report before the media craze...

A few days later, fortunately, the British Ministry for Defence published the report at the UFO documents pages on the Internet.

So here it was, and now, I read it. I can tell you what it was worth. Or not. And I will. Point by point. The incredible finding I made is: this report is the worst nonsense I have seen in the ufology literature ever. That some ufologists gave this to the newspapers and TV without any further thinking, that the media have accepted this worldwide at face value as a scientific work convinced me: ufology does not have any chance left of getting a fair look at it. Forget it! The gap between non-ufologists, the gullible public, the scoffers, the media, the balanced skeptics, the hardliner skeptics and serious ufologists has become a galaxy-wide, and ufologist like I have no real chance left to present their case to any wider audience than their own kind in any near future.

41. Often sooner rather than later, the object fades and disappears from view, sometimes re-appearing briefly. Although UAP motion is sometimes described as an accecleration away, it seems more than an anomaly that the object never seems to accelerate towards the observer - only away. This leads to the suggestion (and strong suspicion) that if an object rapidly diminishes in size (shrinking in diameter), giving the impression that it is fast receding. This is reinforced by the suggestion that the discharge has changed the balance of sustaining forces to a point which causes the shape of the object to collapse. Sometimes this is accompanied by a small explosion. This in, turn, gives rise to the supposition by the witness that he/she has heard a conic boom, or has even been 'shot at' as the object sped away. The former is an obvious illusion - as any accompanying shock wave would be moving away, not towards the observer! It is concluded that there is no doubt that some UAP either emanate a beam of light which comes from an internal source, which, for certain reason is not an omni-directional emission, or alternatively emit particles in a beam which, in turn reflect ambiant light, thus appearing to form a beam of light. It is strongly sspected that a coincident electrical or magnetic field is emitted at the same time which can adversely affect some electronic and electrical equipment and the neural activity in humans.

Comment:

The paragraph is of general intention, it is not about a specific sighting report but about UFO sighting reports in general.

Let's see sentence by sentence which direction we can get in there and check whether there is something valuable learned.

The report:	Comment:
"Often sooner rather than later, the object fades and disappears from view, sometimes re-appearing briefly." (The author says that UFOs disappear from sight, generally at the end of a short duration of observation, and sometimes briefly reappear.)	This is only a claim, it applies only to come UFO sighting reports, not all. Let's juste pretend this is a relevant observation. This implies that something must now be deduced from this claim.

"Although UAP motion is sometimes described as an accecleration away, it seems more than an anomaly that the object never seems to accelerate towards the observer - only away." (The author says that people more often see UFOs goint away than coming towards them, and that it suggests that something cane be deduced from that.)	No comment is made on these alleged brief reappearance of UFOs mentioned earlier. When people see a plane in the sky, and that they think they see a UFO, it is obvious that at the end of some time the plane moves away. In UFO landing reports and close encounters reports, it is obvious indeed that the UFO did not "stay there". But in the general case, this does not imply that UFOs have a specific tendency to move away rather than to approach; it is only logical that at the END of the sighting, they move away. If you observe a train that passes, it might very well first come nearer to you, but at the END of the observation, it moves away from you. If your uncle visits you, he is coming to you first, but indeed at a certain time the visit is finished and he has a tendency to move away to go back to his place. The CONTEXT of the event which must be taken into account. Or else, you obtain a study based on the idea that uncles, trains, cars, UFOs tend more to move away than to approach their observers.

"This leads to the suggestion (and strong suspicion) that if an object rapidly diminishes in size (shrinking in diameter), giving the impression that it is fast receding." (The author says that when something in the air to become visually smaller, it gives the impression that it moves away.)	It is very true that this impression exists. But that it absolutely not a deduction of what precedes, it just a fact.

"This is reinforced by the suggestion that the discharge has changed the balance of sustaining forces to a point which causes the shape of the object to collapse." (The author says that when a UFO seems to move away, it does not move away but there is a "discharge" that makes it implode.)	This is pure pseudoscience. Whereas the author had just shown that he understood that the impression of moving away can be an illusion, he now thinks that it implies that UFOs do do not move away but "collapse". What he calls deduction here is purely an invention!

"Sometimes this is accompanied by a small explosion." (The author says sometimes an explosion occurs when the UFO implodes).	Here is an utterly silly speech. Even if this were reported occasionally, it is the opposite that is significant: most of the time, absolutely no explosion is reported. Here, an "exception", UFOs that go "bang", is claimed to be a general feature of UFOs, to prove the series of remarks that follow. The idea of a noise when UFOs implose came to the author by reading documentation on ball lightning. But the UFO reports are not at all ball lightning reports!

"This in, turn, gives rise to the supposition by the witness that he/she has heard a conic boom, or has even been 'shot at' as the object sped away." (The author says that for these UFOs that implode sometimes with noise, the witnesses believe that it is a plane that passes the sound barrier or believe that someone shoots at them with a shotgun.)	Pure BS! For these UFOs that do not go "bang", nothing is said here. They are simply ignored, as if they did not exist. For those that allegedly go "bang", the author, instead of understanding that sometimes, indeed, planes make sonic booms or sometimes, UFO are seen during the hunting season, purely and simply a INVENTS a "phenomenon" of his own: "UFOs that go bang", a phenomenon that silly witnesses would mistake for planes passing the sound barrier! This is absolutey exhilarating! You saw a flying thing that seemed to fly away and made a "bang"? That was not a jet plane, silly, that was a Condign UFO!

"The former is an obvious illusion - as any accompanying shock wave would be moving away, not towards the observer!" (The author says that this bang does not exist, because sounds do not come towards your ears but move away from your ears.)	Here, stupidity reaches record height. Let's see: the author has just told us that UFOs go "bang". He claims that it is normal, that is explained by "a discharge". He says that people hear this "bang", which would confirm that there is this "bang" that he claims to exist. AND THEN HE SAYS THAT THIS BANG IS AN ILLUSION! Then, he invents this hogwash theory, stupid beyond anthing, that it is not possible, that it is inevitably an illusion, because you cannot EVER hear a sound if the source of the sound moves away! And all that whil he had just explained that the moving away is an ILLUSION! In other words, if you see a supersonic plane passing by and of you hear a "bang", according to him, IT CANNOT HAPPEN, IT IS AN ILLUSION!!! But that is nothing yet: when I read his next sentence, I had laughed so much that I had to take a break...

"It is concluded that there is no doubt that some UAP either emanate a beam of light which comes from an internal source, which, for certain reason is not an omni-directional emission, or alternatively emit particles in a beam which, in turn reflect ambiant light, thus appearing to form a beam of light."	BEYOND STUPIDITY! The author had told us that UFOs move away, then that the moving away can be an illusion, then that they don't move away but go "bang" (they almost never do) because they implode (pure invention) then he told that that if you hear the "bang" it is an illusion because sounds fly away your ears like UFOs fly away althoug their flying away is an illusion. And now he DEDUCES FROM THAT that UFOs emit a beam of light or particles!!! He deduced this firmly "there is no doubt"!!! That is what the Press called "Science proved that UFOs don't exist"!!! In my entire ufology experience, I never read anything remotely so silly...

"It is strongly suspected that a coincident electrical or magnetic field is emitted at the same time which can adversely affect some electronic and electrical equipment and the neural activity in humans."	You see, the only goal of all this delirium was to convince you that UFOs are ball lightning, and it is with what the mass media headlined: "ET was just a puff of plasma."

The report:

Comment:

"Often sooner rather than later, the object fades and disappears from view, sometimes re-appearing briefly." (The author says that UFOs disappear from sight, generally at the end of a short duration of observation, and sometimes briefly reappear.)

This is only a claim, it applies only to come UFO sighting reports, not all. Let's juste pretend this is a relevant observation. This implies that something must now be deduced from this claim.

"Although UAP motion is sometimes described as an accecleration away, it seems more than an anomaly that the object never seems to accelerate towards the observer - only away." (The author says that people more often see UFOs goint away than coming towards them, and that it suggests that something cane be deduced from that.)

No comment is made on these alleged brief reappearance of UFOs mentioned earlier. When people see a plane in the sky, and that they think they see a UFO, it is obvious that at the end of some time the plane moves away. In UFO landing reports and close encounters reports, it is obvious indeed that the UFO did not "stay there". But in the general case, this does not imply that UFOs have a specific tendency to move away rather than to approach; it is only logical that at the END of the sighting, they move away. If you observe a train that passes, it might very well first come nearer to you, but at the END of the observation, it moves away from you. If your uncle visits you, he is coming to you first, but indeed at a certain time the visit is finished and he has a tendency to move away to go back to his place. The CONTEXT of the event which must be taken into account. Or else, you obtain a study based on the idea that uncles, trains, cars, UFOs tend more to move away than to approach their observers.

"This leads to the suggestion (and strong suspicion) that if an object rapidly diminishes in size (shrinking in diameter), giving the impression that it is fast receding." (The author says that when something in the air to become visually smaller, it gives the impression that it moves away.)

It is very true that this impression exists. But that it absolutely not a deduction of what precedes, it just a fact.

"This is reinforced by the suggestion that the discharge has changed the balance of sustaining forces to a point which causes the shape of the object to collapse." (The author says that when a UFO seems to move away, it does not move away but there is a "discharge" that makes it implode.)

This is pure pseudoscience. Whereas the author had just shown that he understood that the impression of moving away can be an illusion, he now thinks that it implies that UFOs do do not move away but "collapse". What he calls deduction here is purely an invention!

"Sometimes this is accompanied by a small explosion." (The author says sometimes an explosion occurs when the UFO implodes).

Here is an utterly silly speech. Even if this were reported occasionally, it is the opposite that is significant: most of the time, absolutely no explosion is reported. Here, an "exception", UFOs that go "bang", is claimed to be a general feature of UFOs, to prove the series of remarks that follow.

The idea of a noise when UFOs implose came to the author by reading documentation on ball lightning. But the UFO reports are not at all ball lightning reports!

"This in, turn, gives rise to the supposition by the witness that he/she has heard a conic boom, or has even been 'shot at' as the object sped away."

(The author says that for these UFOs that implode sometimes with noise, the witnesses believe that it is a plane that passes the sound barrier or believe that someone shoots at them with a shotgun.)

Pure BS! For these UFOs that do not go "bang", nothing is said here. They are simply ignored, as if they did not exist. For those that allegedly go "bang", the author, instead of understanding that sometimes, indeed, planes make sonic booms or sometimes, UFO are seen during the hunting season, purely and simply a INVENTS a "phenomenon" of his own: "UFOs that go bang", a phenomenon that silly witnesses would mistake for planes passing the sound barrier! This is absolutey exhilarating!

You saw a flying thing that seemed to fly away and made a "bang"? That was not a jet plane, silly, that was a Condign UFO!

"The former is an obvious illusion - as any accompanying shock wave would be moving away, not towards the observer!" (The author says that this bang does not exist, because sounds do not come towards your ears but move away from your ears.)

Here, stupidity reaches record height.

Let's see: the author has just told us that UFOs go "bang". He claims that it is normal, that is explained by "a discharge". He says that people hear this "bang", which would confirm that there is this "bang" that he claims to exist. AND THEN HE SAYS THAT THIS BANG IS AN ILLUSION!

Then, he invents this hogwash theory, stupid beyond anthing, that it is not possible, that it is inevitably an illusion, because you cannot EVER hear a sound if the source of the sound moves away!

And all that whil he had just explained that the moving away is an ILLUSION!

In other words, if you see a supersonic plane passing by and of you hear a "bang", according to him, IT CANNOT HAPPEN, IT IS AN ILLUSION!!!

But that is nothing yet: when I read his next sentence, I had laughed so much that I had to take a break...

"It is concluded that there is no doubt that some UAP either emanate a beam of light which comes from an internal source, which, for certain reason is not an omni-directional emission, or alternatively emit particles in a beam which, in turn reflect ambiant light, thus appearing to form a beam of light."

BEYOND STUPIDITY! The author had told us that UFOs move away, then that the moving away can be an illusion, then that they don't move away but go "bang" (they almost never do) because they implode (pure invention) then he told that that if you hear the "bang" it is an illusion because sounds fly away your ears like UFOs fly away althoug their flying away is an illusion. And now he DEDUCES FROM THAT that UFOs emit a beam of light or particles!!! He deduced this firmly "there is no doubt"!!! That is what the Press called "Science proved that UFOs don't exist"!!!

In my entire ufology experience, I never read anything remotely so silly...

"It is strongly suspected that a coincident electrical or magnetic field is emitted at the same time which can adversely affect some electronic and electrical equipment and the neural activity in humans."

You see, the only goal of all this delirium was to convince you that UFOs are ball lightning, and it is with what the mass media headlined: "ET was just a puff of plasma."

As regards UFO-related official, good and bad had been published. But that Her Majesty's Government paid a guy five years long to get such gobbledygook, that's really alien to me.

I never yet used such hard words in ufology, but here I have to: Paragraph 41 page 16 of the Condign report is pure buffoonery.

Stupidities

Condign report - Paragraph 41, page 16:

Brief reminder:

Comment: