What does "genuine UFO" mean in the Condon Committee report

Just an inquiry about the semantical nature of a quote

Essentially within the Condon Committee report it was, the report was that at least one genuine UFO is highly likely

(From Wikipedia)

Because UFOs have become synonymous with aliens, what I'm asking is did the Condon think that there was a high likelihood that an alien spacecraft was involved?


Senior Member.
If you read the full conclusion from your wiki links on that case, it sounds to me as if multiple things could have been happening that night. if your line is referring to the light the Tower (air traffic control) saw fly over, allegedly confirmed by another pilot at 5000 feet* then that would be just an unidentified object that appeared to be flying.

*this report seems based on a 12 year old memory. and it says stuff like "visual sightings" by the interceptor? but then has the interceptor say things like " Number one also made a remark at this time to number two, that he had his radar locked on whatever it was for just a few seconds so there was something there that was solid." which to me implies he didnt actually see it. ???



Senior Member.
From the Condon report:
2. Definition of an UFO
An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced OOFO) is here defined as the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something seen in the sky (or an object thought to be capable of flight but when landed on the earth) which the observer could not identify as having an ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it to police, to government officials, to the press, or perhaps to a representative of a private organization devoted to the study of such objects.

With that language, and given the quote, I would take a "genuine UFO" to be an object that does not have an "ordinary natural origin" or a "conventional or natural explanation". (The case study is at https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case02.htm in the report.)

Back to the original question (emphasis mine):
Section II
Summary of the Study
9. Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis

The idea that some UFOs may be spacecraft sent to Earth from another civilization, residing on another planet of the solar system, or on a planet associated with a more distant star than the Sun, is called the Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). Some few persons profess to hold a stronger level of belief in the actuality of UFOs being visitors from outer space, controlled by intelligent beings, rather than merely of the possibility, not yet fully established as an observational fact. We shall call this level of belief ETA, for extraterrestrial actuality.


In the cases which we studied, there was only one in which the observer claimed to have had contact with a visitor from outer space. On the basis of our experience with that one, and our own unwillingness to believe the literal truth of the Villas-Boas incident, or the one from Truckee, Calif. reported by Prof. James Harder (see Section V, Chapter 2), we found that no direct evidence whatever of a convincing nature now exists for the claim that any UFOs represent spacecraft visiting Earth from another civilization.

Some persons are temperamentally ready, even eager, to accept ETA without clear observational evidence. One lady remarked, "It would be so wonderfully exciting if it were true!" It certainly would be exciting, but that does not make it true. When confronted with a proposition of such great import, responsible scientists adopt a cautiously critical attitude toward whatever evidence is adduced to support it. Persons without scientific training, often confuse this with basic Opposition to the idea, with a biased desire or hope, or even of willingness to distort the evidence in order to conclude that ETA is not true.

The scientists' caution in such a situation does not represent opposition to the idea. It represents a determination not to accept the proposition as true in the absence of evidence that clearly, unambiguously and with certainty establishes its truth or falsity.

Scientifically it is not necessary -- it is not even desirable -- to adopt a position about the truth or falsity of ETA in order to investigate the question. There is a widespread misconception that scientific inquiry represents some kind of debate in which the truth is adjudged to be on the side of the team that has scored the most points. Scientists investigate an undecided proposition by seeking to find ways to get decisive observational material. Sometimes the ways to get such data are difficult to conceive, difficult to carry out, and so indirect that the rest of the scientific world remains uncertain of the probative value of the results for a long time. Progress in science can be painfully slow -- at other times it can be sudden and dramatic. The question of ETA would be settled in a few minutes if a flying saucer were to land on the lawn of a hotel where a convention of the American Physical Society was in progress, and its occupants were to emerge and present a special paper to the assembled physicists, revealing where they came from, and the technology of how their craft operates. Searching questions from the audience would follow.

In saying that thus far no convincing evidence exists for the truth of ETA, no prediction is made about the future. If evidence appears soon after this report is published, that will not alter the truth of the statement that we do not now have such evidence. If new evidence appears later, this report can be appropriately revised in a second printing.

My interpretation of that is that Condon thought that none of the explanations they were given in this case was likely to be correct; but that he reserved judgment on whether alien spacecraft were involved or not.


Senior Member.
With that language, and given the quote, I would take a "genuine UFO" to be an object that does not have an "ordinary natural origin" or a "conventional or natural explanation". (The case study is at https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case02.htm in the report.)

i'm only quoting you here to highlight this area of disagreement to @ParanoidSkeptic2 . I agree with the rest of your comment, but not this statement.

@ParanoidSkeptic2 to me the "genuine ufo" means it is an object...distinct from the other natural phenomenon that may have been occurring and sighted on the same night and tied to the object. (ie radar glitches, atmosphere stuff, meteor showers etc).
Like how Fravor's sighting is distinct from the Tic-Tac video footage online and radar glitches that were observed, even though the ET believers tried to tie them together because they happened on the same day and allegedly the Tic-Tac vid shows the object shooting off the way Fravor described his sighting,etc. (this video acceleration was of course disproven)

This happens with hauntings too. You hear weird house settling noises that sound like footsteps, and then that closet door that never did stay shut is noticed to be open even though you know you shut it. then as you walk down the hall there is a flash of something in the mirror, even though that flash always happens because the mirror reflects a cabinet glass in the kitchen and as you move the dark wood of the cabinet appears like a person moving. You tie all these occurrences together ..and conclude GHOST!...on this particular night because the footstep noises scared you. but none of them are ghosts and none of them are actually tied together. (Hopefully my analogy here, didnt confuse you more).

Ultimately Paranoid2, Condon did not believe in E.T ufos. If he felt one case was a genuine ET ufo, he wouldnt have said this:

page 8 : Section I Conclusions and Recommendations Edward U. Condon
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Critical Thinker What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
iKnowWhoYouAre why does this site even exist? General Discussion 134
Canadasix If its just contrails why does it start from the east and work it's way west? Contrails and Chemtrails 10
scombrid Does drug use cause paranoia or do paranoids seek out psychoactive drugs? General Discussion 7
Leifer Rabies does not exist. Conspiracy Theories 8
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Juror No. 8 Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why? General Discussion 99
Related Articles

Related Articles