Power Tools for Technical Communication:
Add Textual Citations



In this lab, you format a list of information sources and then use it to docment a page of text:
  1. Copy the text below this box, and paste it into your preferred word-processing software.
  2. Format the list of information sources using the documentation style required by your instructor or used in your field.
  3. Replace the red-highlighted citation notes with the style of citation required by your instructor or used in your field.
  4. Put your name, Documentation Practice, and the date on this document, and print it out for your instructor.

Text to Document

Replace the red-highlighted source notes with the style of citation required by your instructor or used in your field:

The Air Force organized an "Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book," and this committee met in February 1966. Its members were Brian O'Brien (chairman), Launor Carter, Jesse Orlansky, Richard Porter, Carl Sagan, and Willis A. Ware. This committee recommended that the Air Force negotiate contracts "with a few selected universities to provide selected teams to investigate promptly and in depth certain selected sightings of UFOs." This recommendation led eventually (in October 1966) to an Air Force contract to the University of Colorado. The director was Professor Edward U. Condon, a very distinguished physicist and a man of strong and independent character.

Work on this contract was carried out over a two-year period with a substantial scientific staff. The study produced a report that contains 240 pages of case studies. The entire report, with supplementary and peripheral material, is almost 1,000 pages in length. Since this study is the only unclassified investigation of the UFO phenomenon carried out by an established scientific organization under contract to a U.S. federal agency, the report of this study (usually referred to as the "Condon Report") [The preceding information comesd from the Condon-Gillmor source.] constitutes a landmark in the study of the UFO phenomenon, to which all later work must be referred. For instance, any review of the UFO phenomenon to be published in one of the mainstream scientific journals must begin with a discussion of the Condon Report (CR) explaining where and why the author disagrees with the findings of that report. Even more important, any proposal to the Air Force or any other federal agency, requesting funds for UFO research, must begin by explaining why the Condon Report is not to be accepted as the last word on the problem.

Two studies that were initially classified but have since been declassified deserve special mention. One of these was conducted by a panel comprising Luis Alvarez, Lloyd Berkner, Samuel A. Goudsmit, Thornton Page, and H. P. Robertson (chairman), with Frederic C. Durant and J. Allen Hynek serving as associate members. This panel was convened by the Central Intelligence Agency for a period of five days in 1953 to consider the question whether UFOs constitute a threat to national defense. The panel concluded that there was "no evidence that the phenomena indicate a need for the revision of current scientific concepts" and that "the evidence . . . shows no indication that these phenomena constitute a direct physical threat to national security". [The preceding comes from the Jacobs source.]

The general impression given by Condon's summary is that there is nothing unusual or significant in the UFO phenomenon. This view gains significant additional weight from the fact that the Condon Report was reviewed by a panel of eminent scientists of the National Academy of Sciences who endorsed both the methodology and findings of the report [This information comes from the Condon and Gillmor source, pages vii-ix]. Some readers may be interested in reading other reviews of the Condon Report. Soon after the Report was published, Icarus carried two reviews, one by McDonald [indicate the 1969 source here] and the other by Chiu [indicate the 1969 source here]. Hynek [indicate the 1972 source here] and Jacobs [indicate the 1975 source here], in their books on the UFO problem, each devote a chapter to the Condon Report.

Although the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant. Such views have been presented in the Hearings of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics [indicate the 1968 Roush source here] and in the book by Hynek [indicate the Hynek 1972 source here]. It is also notable that one major national scientific society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, set up a subcommittee in 1967 to "gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO phenomenon." This subcommittee published a position statement [indicate the Kuettner 1970 soure here] and sponsored the publication of analyses of two UFO cases [indicate the 1971 McDonald source and the 1971 Thayer source here], each of which was considered also by the Condon team. The AIAA versions of these cases are more detailed than those found in the Condon Report and are clearly based on more extensive data.

In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements[indicate the Sturrock 1978 source here]), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments or observations) is provided by the scientific journals.

Information Sources

Format the following information using the documentation style required by your instructor or used in your field:

  1. Kuettner, J. P., "UFO: An appraisal of the problem," Astronautics & Aeronautics, vol. 8, 1970, pp. 49-51.

  2. McDonald, J. E., "UFO encounter I," Astronautics & Aeronautics, vol. 9, 1971, p. 66-70.

  3. Hynek, J. S. The UFO experience. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1972.

  4. McDonald, J. E., "The Condon report: scientific study of unidentified flying objects," Icarus, vol. 11, 1969, pp. 443-447.

  5. Chiu, H. Y., "The Condon Report, scientific study of unidentified flying objects," Icarus, vol. 11, 1969, pp. 447-450.

  6. Jacobs, D. M. The UFO controversy in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1975.

  7. Roush, E. J., Ed. Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects. Hearings before the Committee on Science & Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives. 90th Congress, 2nd Session, PB 179541 (No. 7). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

  8. Condon, E. U. and D. S. Gillmor. Scientific study of unidentified flying objects. New York: Bantam, 1968.

  9. Sturrock, P. A. Report on a survey of the American Astronomical Society concerning the UFO phenomenon. Stanford University Report SUIPR 681R. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1978.

  10. Thayer, G. D., "UFO encounter II," Astronautics & Aeronautics, vol. 9, 1971, pp. 60-64.


Information and programs provided by hcexres@prismnet.com.