|
The extraordinary story of the half-million-dollar "trick"
to make Americans believe the Condon committee
was conducting an objective investigation
A STRANGE SERIES of incidents in the University of Colorado
Unidentified Flying Objects study has led to a near-mutiny by
several of the staff scientists, the dismissal of two Ph.D's on the
staff and the resignation of the project's administrative assistant.
The study, announced as a totally objective scientific investigation
of one of the most puzzling phenomena of modern times, has already cost
the taxpayer over half a million dollars. The committee is scheduled to
release its report by the end of the year.
The announcement by the Secretary of Defense in October 1966, that
the Air Force had selected Dr. Edward U. Condon and the University
of Colorado for the UFO research contract was welcomed both by
skeptical observers and those convinced of the existence of flying
saucers.
Maj. Donald Keyhoe and his National Investigations Committee on
Aerial Phenomena, who were among the severest critics of the Air
Force's study, publicly announced cautious support and offered
NICAP's nation-wide UFO reporting system to the new research group.
Condon, then 64, a distinguished physicist, former president of both
the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the
American Physical Society, had grappled with and subdued the House
Un-American Activities Committee, and served as director of the U.S.
Government's National Bureau of Standards from 1945 to 1951. His
leadership appeared to promise pure scientific objectivity in the
study. Only two details seemed to disturb some observers. Four out
of the first five investigators appointed were psychologists. And
Robert J. Low, project coordinator and key operations man in the
study, held a master's degree in business administration
(although his bachelor's degree was in electrical engineering).
Some critics felt that more physical scientists were needed. Condon
assured them that the staff would become more balanced, and later,
it was.
The project staff received a minor jolt early in October of 1966,
when the Denver Post published a story: CU AIDE SLAPS UFO
STUDY Low was quoted as saying that the UFO project
"comes pretty close to the criteria of nonacceptability"
as a university function.
But the massive problems of getting the
project started left little time for debate over that statement.
Briefings were held in which Dr. J. Allen Hynek, chairman of the
Department of Astronomy of Northwestern University and one of the
few scientists in the country who had given UFOs serious study,
gave the staff the background information he had acquired in his 20
years as scientific consultant for the Air Force. Later, such
authorities as Major Keyhoe and Richard Hall, from NICAP, Maj.
Hector Quintanilla, of the Air Force UFO study, and Dr. James
McDonald, physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics
and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of
Arizona, addressed the group. McDonald had carried out an extensive
investigation on his own.
After examining the hundreds of well-documented reports of sightings
by military and airline pilots, radar operators, police, technical
observers and articulate, rational laymen, McDonald rejected as
highly unlikely such conventional explanations for UFOs as
ball lightning (plasma), hallucinations, hoaxes and
misinterpretations of natural phenomena. He concluded that "only
abysmally limited scientific competence has been brought to the
study of UFOs within Air Force circles in the past 15 years.
Unfortunately, during all this time, the scientific community and
the public were repeatedly assured that substantial scientific
talent was being used...."
From the beginning, the relationship between Dr. McDonald and
Robert Low, the project coordinator, was abrasive. Low, who speaks
softly, smoothly and guardedly, contrasts sharply with McDonald, who
is intense and bluntly articulate.
The relationship between the Colorado group and NICAP was
especially important. NICAP was large and well-organized,
and could supply information on UFO sightings on a nationwide
scale. NICAP hoped that the Colorado group would retain its
scientific objectivity by concentrating on the estimated ten percent
of "high credibility" cases, such as those Dr. McDonald
was investigating.
The first major turbulence in the new project came early in
February, 1967. Condon, burdened by heavy responsibilities in many
public and educational projects, could not spend much time in the
project offices. Low assumed the responsibilities for most of the
decision-making. But on January, 25, Condon, known for his breezy,
anecdotal style, spoke before a chapter of Sigma Xi, the
honorary scientific fraternity. The Elmira, N.Y., Star-Gazette
reported:
"Unidentified flying objects
are not the business of the Air Force,"... Dr. Edward U. Condon
said here Wednesday night.... Dr. Condon left no doubt as to his
personal sentiments on the matter: "It is my inclination right now
to recommend that the Government get out of this business. My
attitude right now is that there's nothing to it." With a
smile, he added, "but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion
for another year..."
The story also quoted Condon as saying: "What we're always reduced
to is interviewing persons who claim they've had some kind of
experience....I don't know of any cases where the phenomenon was still
there after the person reports it... and it seems odd, but these
people always seem to wait until they get home before they report
what they saw."
Keyhoe knew of cases where "the phenomenon was still there
after the person reported it," and where the observer didn't
wait to get home before he reported it. He bristled. He knew that
Condon had not yet investigated any field cases personally, nor had
any members of the staff completed any meaningful research. The
project was only three months old. "I have to admit,"
Keyhoe told David Saunders, a key staff member, "that I'm
shocked by these statements. Is this a scientific investigation or
isn't it?"
Condon wrote Keyboe that some of his remarks had been taken out of
context. NICAP then issued this statement: "Although we retain
some reservations about the impressions of Dr. Condon's attitudes
conveyed through some press accounts, we find no reason to go along
with the skeptics who interpret the project merely as the latest
gambit in an Air Force propaganda campaign. Having met most of the
scientists involved, we are generally satisfied with their
fair-mindedness and their thorough plans..."
The NICAP cooperation made it possible to establish an
Early Warning System,
and staff investigators were now being dispatched for field
reports. Saunders gave particular attention to field surveys, as
well as to the development of a master casebook and staff
discussions of major cases. Low was giving the staff members
considerable leeway in the approach they were taking. Condon, with
his office some distance away, did not appear frequently, and some
of the staff felt that it was often frustrating to try to reach him.
During this time, it seemed to some of the staff that several
potentially interesting cases were turned down for investigation by
Low for what were apparently specious reasons.
Another scientific investigator, Dr.
Norman Levine, joined the project and
immediately became aware of the strained atmosphere developing between
Low and several members of the staff. Condon himself was heard to say
that he wished the project could give the money back.
A senior member of the staff who was asked to make a speech before a
teachers association began looking for specific details on the origin of
the project. He was told that he might find some information in the
open-files folder under the heading AIR FORCE CONTRACT AND
BACKGROUND. The relaxed open-file system was part of a general
overall policy to keep the project out of the cloak-and-dagger
category. (In a later memo, Low said:
"The key point to keep in mind, it seems to me, is that our own files
are not secure, they are not confidential, they can't be kept confidential,
nor should they be....It is inconsistent with the purposes of a university
to keep confidential any records of research activity....or any
other records for that matter.")
The staff member found most of the material about the contract
rather dull going, but one memo, written by Low to university
officials on August 9, 1966, contained a few fresh details. The
memo, labeled "Some Thoughts on the UFO Project," had
been written before the contract was signed. In it,
Low said,
"..... Our study
would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers who,
although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result,
could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that
there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I
think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would
appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community,
would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best
to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a
saucer. One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of
the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the
observing – the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who
report seeing UFO's. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on
examination of the old question of the physical reality of the
saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the
message....I'm inclined to feel at this early stage that, if we set
up the thing right and take pains to get the proper people involved
and have success in presenting the image we want to present to the
scientific community, we could carry the job off to our
benefit...."
When Levine read the memo, he was disturbed by the word
"trick" and the phrase about making the investigation
"appear a totally objective study" to the
public. Others on the staff had a similar reaction.
Many staff members were also disturbed by the news that Condon had
decided to attend the June Congress of "Ufologists" in New York.
This was a convention of far-out supporters of undocumented and
highly colorful UFO sightings.
On September 18, Condon, Low and Saunders met for the first time in
many weeks. As a result of his reading of the memo, Saunders was deeply
concerned about the negative approach to the UFO problem. It would
be easy, he felt, to concentrate on the nut-and-kook cases and
persuasively eliminate any serious consideration of the real problem.
The meeting went on for three hours. Low did most of the talking. Condon
seemed tired. Low's position was that Saunders was sticking his nose into
something that was none of his business. Condon's position was that he
didn't understand what Saunders was talking about.
Saunders was led to believe that if by chance the Extra Terrestrial
Intelligence (ETI) hypothesis was substantiated, the announcement
would be sent by Condon directly to the Air Force and the President, and
never be allowed to go to the public. This troubled him, because Saunders
had been given a clear understanding that the report would go first to
the National Academy of Sciences, then to the public and Air Force
simultaneously. Saunders felt he could not let the problem drop.
Another meeting was agreed to.
At this point, Keyhoe suddenly sent word that NICAP was going
to take a strong stand against the Condon committee and no longer would
supply material and reports. The reason, Keyhoe said, was a new speech
made by Condon at the Atomic Spectroscopy Symposium at Gaithersburg, Md.,
on September 13, 1967. A report of the new Condon speech had already reached
Dr. McDonald in a letter from a colleague at the University of Arizona,
William S. Bickel, assistant professor of physics on the campus.
"..... Dr. Condon's speech was funny and entertaining,"
Bickel wrote. "But to me, it was also disappointing and
surprising. Dr. Condon emphasized mostly funny things. He told of
an offer made to him by a contactee, who, for a sizable sum
deposited in the right bank, would introduce him to a UFO
crew. ... He told how he tracked the case down and concluded
that it was very likely a hoax..... My feelings about UFOs
are similar to those of many people – I don't know what they
are, I believe people are seeing real things, and I believe a
scientific attack on the problem will solve the mystery – whatever
they are..... The net effect of Dr. Condon's talk was zero, if not
negative...."
In reply to Bickel, McDonald wrote, "..... The crackpots are so
immediately recognizable that one need not waste any time at all on
them.... I fail to understand why a scientific group should be
given an address by any member of the Colorado team on the topic of
the crackpot fringe...."
Word came from Keyhoe that he was drafting a long letter to the Colorado
study group, and NICAP would reconsider its cooperation only if
the answers to a list of questions were satisfactory.
On September 27, the Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Col.) published
this headline: UFO RESEARCH CHIEF AT CU DISENCHANTED. Condon was
quoted as saying: "I'm almost inclined to think such studies
ought to be discontinued unless someone comes up with a new idea on
how to approach the problem.... The 21st century may die laughing
when it looks back on many things we have done. This [the UFO
study] may be one."
The majority of the staff began exploring several proposals,
including the possibility of the entire staff resigning en masse or
issuing a press release or a minority report. Another proposal was
the establishment of an independent scientific group to explore the
rational sighting reports and eliminate the crackpot-fringe static.
There was general agreement that an objective study of the UFO
problem should be made and that accurate and unbiased findings
should reach the National Academy of Sciences, the public and the
Air Force. A confrontation with Low and Condon was arranged.
Condon expressed regret that his statements had appeared in the
press. Several members of the staff told of their concern that the
content and form of the final report would reflect what they now
felt was Condon's and Low's prejudice and would be unjustifiably
negative. Staff members speculated that Condon was tired as well as
disenchanted. He remained an enigma because the staff saw so little
of him.
At an informal meeting in Denver on December 12, 1967, Saunders,
Levine, McDonald and Hynek agreed that a new organization might be
formed consisting only of professional-level members, designed to
assure the continuation of intelligent UFO study regardless of
whether the Condon report were negative or positive. After Hynek
left, McDonald first became aware of Low's memo, and expressed his
shock.
On January 19, 1968, Low phoned McDonald at the University of
Arizona. McDonald reminded Low of the clearly negative tone of
Condon's public statements over a period of time, including Condon's
disturbing preoccupation with the crackpot elements. He also
brought up Condon's failure to investigate personally significant
field cases or to question any of the working staff who had been
making a serious UFO study. McDonald stressed that he was not
opposed to negative findings. What bothered him was that negative
findings were already being clearly expressed by both Low and
Condon. Low hung up in anger. McDonald prepared a long letter to
Low to review his complaints. Low did not get around to reading the
letter until February 6. In it, McDonald mentioned for the first
time his concern about the memo, quoting to Low the phrases about
"the trick." "I am rather puzzled by the viewpoints
expressed there," McDonald wrote, "but I gather that they
seem entirely straightforward to you, else this part of the record
would, presumably, not be available for inspection in the open Project
files...."
Mrs. Mary Louise Armstrong, who had worked directly with Low as his
administrative assistant, was in the office as Low finished reading the
letter. Low exploded. He said that whoever gave the memo to
McDonald should be fired immediately. Then he seemed to cool down.
On Wednesday, February 7, Saunders was summoned to Condon's office.
Low and Condon were present. The questioning focused on the memo.
Did Saunders know of it and know where it was kept? Saunders said
that the memo was only part of the whole problem. It alone did not
seem especially important, he felt. The broader issues of
scientific integrity were at stake. Condon, furious that he had not
immediately been informed that McDonald knew of the memo, told
Saunders, "For an act like that, you ought to be ruined
professionally."
Saunders countered by saying that Condon and Low seemed to be
treating the symptoms rather than the disease. He reminded them of
the efforts of the entire staff to get Low and Condon to modify
their intractable stance. He reviewed the long sequence of events
and reminded Low that he had blocked the investigation of one
particularly startling UFO case. Low protested that the
investigation on this was completed. No mention was made of any
dissatisfaction with Saunders's work.
Dr. Levine was summoned while Saunders was still in Condon's
office. Saunders offered to stay. Low rose from his chair and
physically ushered him out the door. Levine was unnerved by the
forcible ejection of Saunders. Again, the questioning went straight
to the memo. Levine said that he was at the Denver meeting when the
memo was given to McDonald. He understood there was nothing
whatever confidential about the memo, and did not see anything wrong
with the action. Condon asked why Levine had not brought the memo
to him, and Levine said that Condon's public and private statements
had indicated that there was little likelihood of effective
communication. He told Condon that Low had slammed the door in his
face when he brought up the handling by Low of an Edwards Air Force
Base case, and recalled that Condon himself had suggested that
Levine call in sick when he was scheduled to make a talk at
Colorado's High Altitude Observatory.
Condon accused him of being disloyal and treacherous, and Levine
replied that loyalty to a scientific goal might take precedence over
personal loyalty. Condon asked why Levine didn't invite him to come
over and investigate the important cases. Levine indicated that he
did not feel it was his place to invite the chief scientist of the
project over. The questioning lasted about an hour. Condon
dismissed Levine abruptly.
Mrs. Armstrong had joined the project at its inception with no
convictions whatever about UFOs. By February, 1967, she was
convinced that the study was being gravely misdirected. When, on
February 7, 1968, Condon told her that he was going to fire Saunders
and Levine the next day, Mrs. Armstrong's first impulse was to
resign immediately. But she then decided first to confront Condon
with what she regarded as clear, unassailable documentation of the
factors behind the disagreement and low morale of the staff.
She talked to Condon on February 22, 1968, at his office. She told
him frankly that there appeared to be an almost unanimous lack of
confidence in the project coordinator and his scientific direction
of the project. She pointed out that Low had indicated little
interest in talking to those who carried out the investigations or
in reading their reports. She said that her long, close association
with Low gave strong evidence that he was trying very hard to say as
little as possible in the final report, and to say that in the most
negative way possible. At Condon's request, she wrote a follow-up
letter in which she added that the tone of the memo indicated that
Low was not unbiased from the beginning. Condon then wrote her:
"My position is that that letter is a confidential matter
between the two of us and that for you to disclose it to anyone else
would be gravely unethical." But after long consideration,
Mrs. Armstrong felt that it was more important to the public
interest to state her feelings clearly.
The others who left the project also felt they had an obligation to
speak out, and when Condon failed to respond positively to his
outspoken letter of criticism, McDonald brought the matter before
the executive officers of the National Academy of Sciences in a
vigorous written protest. Saunders and Levine cleared their desks
at Woodbury Hall and left.
Asked about the near-mutiny in the investigating staff, Condon said
that he would make no comment. Low stated that he had absolutely
"zero comment" to make about the dismissals. Thurston
Manning, vice president and dean of the faculties of the University
of Colorado, delivered word through his secretary that he had
nothing to say. Scott Tyler, in charge of public relations for the
university, said that he had no comment.
The hope that the establishment of the Colorado study brought with
it has dimmed. All that seems to be left is the $500,000 trick.
|
|
|||||||||