Introduction
The McDonald campaign to force a paradigm shift on the scientific
community with respect to the interpretation of unidentified flying
object data had a duration of almost five years. There is sufficient
information available to permit a detailed look at the entire process.
However, this is not necessary both because it would make for a tedious
presentation and due to the fact that the central theme of the study --
namely that we can view the scientific process as a political process --
is demonstrable without resorting to such a complete rendering.
Therefore, only the first year (1966) of McDonald's involvement in the
controversy is presented in full.
McDonald is followed in his day-to-day interactions with those
within and without the scientific community in an attempt to recreate
the hectic atmosphere which developed around him as he tried to reason
and cajole his way to a paradigm shift. The presentation of his first
year's campaign, then, is not a substantively focused discussion, but
rather reflects the helter skelter strategy and tactics which McDonald
employed. This does not mean that his behavior lacked direction,
however, it is indicative of the fact that he did considerable spade
work to determine the parameters of the phenomenon and the most
appropriate tactics to implement his strategy. Oftentimes it seemed
that he endeavored to fight some amorphous multi-faceted foe (the old
paradigm) which would give way in one area only to become more
intransigent in another. Hopefully, much of this is conveyed in the
following chapter. Although regrettable, the detailed form of
presentation is an unavoidable necessity in making my case. For it is
only through the reconstruction made possible by the use of most of the
pieces, that the mosaic called the scientific process will take form.
To further flesh out the context various bits of background are
presented intermixed with the ongoing story. In some respects this
serves to break the continuity of the events, but on the other hand it
provides an increased understanding of the UFO controversy in general
and that knowledge facilitates a better grasp of the role McDonald
played and the rationale for the tactics he used. Moreover, by
proffering this background data now, it will not be necessary to present
it in the chapters which follow and consequently they can focus on
elements of the politics of science surrounding the paradigm shift
attempt without annoying digressions.
It is difficult to say when Dr. James E. McDonald first became
interested in the UFO phenomenon, but it is probably safe to conjecture
that his curiosity was aroused by a sighting he and his wife made while
driving in the Arizona desert in the early 1950s. Nevertheless, it
would appear that he did not take the problem seriously until much
later. When he did so he often said, when asked why he waited so long,
that he relied on the statements of the United States Air Force and in
particular on the word of the only Air Force scientific consultant who
claimed over-time familiarity with the problem, J. Allen Hynek. At any
rate, McDonald remained content until the spring of 1966 to pursue the
problem on a very low-key basis.
This amounted to some case investigations in the Tucson area and
limited interaction with Richard Hall, the Assistant Director of
the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). As
early as April 1960 NICAP contacted McDonald in the process of
soliciting the signatures of scientists on a statement which would
eventually take the form of a press release indicating the significance
of the UFO problem. Apparently McDonald wrote Hall to the effect that
he would sign, but expressed qualms about several of the points. Hall
responded that McDonald's criticisms were well taken, but that the
statement could not be changed at that late date, although McDonald
was welcome to add anything he wanted at the end of the statement which
would be solely attributable to himself.
[1]
Hall also enclosed case material on an ice-fall (a term used to
designate the falling of a large chunk of ice from the sky) which took
place May 10, 1959 in Smithtown, Long Island. Probably McDonald agreed
to consult on such cases because his specialties of meteorology and
cloud physics seemed related to them. Many researchers persuaded of the
extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) felt that the mysterious ice-falls
emanated from space craft, notably because reports of them existed long
before the flight of the first airplane.
Later that year Hall again wrote McDonald on the subject of the
joint statement of scientists. McDonald, already deeply embroiled in a
controversy concerning the placement of ICBM missile sites around
Tucson, earlier asked Hall in a letter of June 12, 1960 not to use his
name on the UFO statement unless it came out in September or later
because he feared the bizarre nature of the issue could redound to his
detriment in the missile site battle with the Air
Force. [2]
Therefore, Hall told McDonald that his signature would not
be used since NICAP wanted to get the joint statement out in
July. [3]
In addition Hall outlined part of his position on the UFO issue.
He said that he found the "don't panic" Air Force line on the Titan
missile question analogous to the "don't panic" policy on UFOs. He
indicated that unlike McDonald he did not consider UFOs an unusual
scientific problem, but rather physical objects readily amenable to
investigation via instrumentation. The problem, in Hall's view,
appeared psychological and political; an unwillingness to launch an
investigation. He felt the answer would be forthcoming if the
scientific method were applied. Hall defended Major Keyhoe and NICAP
against McDonald's criticisms of Keyhoe's writing style for its lack of
rigor, and NICAP for its unscientific ways. Hall claimed Keyhoe's
facts were the important issue, not whether or not he could write in an
acceptable scientific mode. With respect to NICAP, it didn't have the
funds to do science, it needed to act as a propaganda agency to thwart
the Air Force, the doing of science would have to wait for funding.
McDonald wrote back that he was in agreement with Hall "on all the
broad issues raised by UFOs." He made it clear that his name should
not appear in the joint statement because the Air Force would use it to
discredit his position in the missile site controversy. He said he
would follow NICAP's efforts to get a congressional inquiry with great
interest.
[4]
So we can see that by 1960 McDonald exhibited more than a casual
interest in the UFO problem. He functioned as an anonymous consultant
for NICAP, he looked into cases in the Tucson area, and he started a
search of the UFO literature in an attempt to determine for himself the
scope of the phenomenon, and if there existed a solid foundation on
which he might build. Perhaps equally important for his future work, he
established contact with Richard Hall, who would be his coworker and
close friend in the hectic years from 1966-1971.
McDonald's files do not indicate that he did any UFO work between
1961, when he discussed a sighting photograph with Hall, and 1966 when
he made the decision to devote considerable energy to the subject.
[5]
I think we can surmise that he used the intervening years to pursue the
problem in a subdued fashion by continuing with Tucson area
investigations and by following the UFO literature.
He indicated in a letter to Hall in 1966 that before he "came out"
on UFOs he proceeded in this manner for about ten years. He considered
the evidence gleaned in this way disturbing but not decisive. Moreover,
in the case of the UFO literature, Keyhoe's books for instance,
he could not determine what to accept as fact. What made him decide to
try and satisfy his curiosity on the subject with a summer study in
1966 were a few unexplained local incidents in 1965 and the March 1966
wave (a large number of sightings) in Michigan.
[6]
This is partially confirmed by a letter McDonald wrote to
Tom Malone, Vice-President and Director of Research Meteorology for
Travelers Life Insurance Company and Chairman of the National Academy
of Science (NAS) Committee on the Atmospheric Sciences (CAS) at the
time of the March Michigan sightings. He expressed his belief that the
scientific community failed to respond adequately to the UFO phenomenon,
that the history of science was strewn with stories of similar oversight
and that to avoid the problem on the grounds that the data were too
messy smelled of scientific arrogance.
He went on to indicate his increasing dissatisfaction with the
treatment accorded the problem by scientists and also the Air Force. He
stated that he contacted Representative Morris Udall of Arizona asking
him to suggest to Representative Ford of Michigan a small panel
investigation by scientists.
In addition, he asked Malone if a small panel could be set up
within the CAS, NAS or some other body. It would have to be done
without any publicity and the panel would need access to the Air Force
files. Federal Aviation Administration files, etc. If nothing came of
it such a summer study could be quietly dissolved, if it bore fruit the
study could be expanded.
McDonald asked Malone to bring it up to the CAS and to Philip Seitz,
President of the NAS. He assured Malone that he gave great thought to
the question and that this seemed to be the best approach. He closed
with a remark which is typical of his style, "I know that it probably
strikes you as a bit off the main path but I do hope your scientific
intuition convinces you that that alone may be a good reason to give
the idea a whirl."
[7]
On the same day as his letter to Malone he sent a note to
Representative Udall, who I would presume he worked with on the Titan
missile affair because he addressed his letter "Dear Mo."
[8]
In his
remarks he pointed out his growing interest and concern with the UFO
issue and brought up a March 27 news story which intimated that
Gerry Ford might call for major UFO hearings. McDonald pointed out the
difficulty of assembling reliable information on the problem and
emphasized the "journalistic fun-poking" which would occur were a
hearing held. He presented as an alternative a small two- or three-man
study through the CAS or NAS which would probably accomplish more and
do it in an unobtrusive fashion. He asked Udall to pass the letter on
to Ford, but both were to keep the idea confidential.
A separate note went to Udall to explain the overture already made
to Malone and to counsel Udall not to forward the initial letter to
Ford if he (Udall) felt it would not remain confidential McDonald, as
he put it, didn't want a headline saying, "University of Arizona
Scientist Pleads with Congressman to initiate Flying Saucer Probe."
[9]
In light of the NICAP efforts to obtain a Congressional probe of
UFOs since the late 1950s McDonald's remarks to Udall suggest that he
was not in tune with NICAP policy at this point. His plans for a quiet
study through the NAS further Imply that he believed the normal scientific
channels were adequate to resolve the issue.
Two days later McDonald began to have second thoughts on the
procedural acceptability of his plan to study UFOs through the CAS. He
zipped off another letter to Malone. He intermixed apologies for
causing Malone problems with more ideas on how to pursue the UFO issue.
First he mentioned the possibility of a background study to provide
information for the committee to decide if it wanted to take up the
problem. Also he presented the concept of a one-man project reporting
directly to Seitz. McDonald made it clear that entree was needed in
such a situation, so that doors would open. The NAS affiliation, he
felt, would provide this and a one-man shoestring study might be useful.
He further liked the one-man approach because if fruitless it could be
terminated easily. But, on the other hand, if Malone liked the two- or
three-man panel concept he (McDonald) would speak for twenty minutes on
the proposal at the April CAS Meeting in Boulder.
[10]
On April 1, 1966 McDonald heard from Udall that Gerry Ford received
the letter and it would be kept in strictest confidence. Udall said he
felt the idea of a quiet study an excellent one and offered his
assistance to Ford.
[11]
This interchange is typical of McDonald's strategy on any given
issue. First he would formulate the problem, then choose those
individuals most likely to be of assistance, and finally start a barrage
of letters intended to move those people to action. We will find this
pattern exhibited on numerous occasions in the following pages.
During this early period McDonald was in the process of getting his
feet wet on the UFO issue, but he also began to show the pugnacity and
dogged tenacity which were both his best and most irritating qualities.
He wrote Hall to ask for back issues of the Investigator (the monthly
NICAP newsletter), and a list of NICAP publications. This tends to
suggest that he started to do his homework on the subject. Nevertheless,
he told Hall he looked into the now classic swamp gas explanation
rendered by Hynek at the behest of the Air Force for the March Hillsdale,
Michigan, sightings and found that the luminosity produced by methane
gas escaping from a pond would not last long enough to account for the
reports.
[12]
This is the first indication of a disagreement between McDonald
and Hynek, however, it will not be the last. They were totally opposite
in temperament and style. Hynek was cautious, career-oriented and
well aware of all the difficulties associated with grappling with the
UFO problem after eighteen years of part-time consulting for the
Air Force on the astronomical aspects of the phenomenon. Not a man who
would go looking for trouble, he just happened to be close at hand when
the Air Force needed a consultant in 1948. Then, very slowly at first,
but with ever greater rapidity in the late 1960s, the storm drew him
toward its center. McDonald, to the contrary, was volatile and enjoyed
a fight. Although politically savvy, as will be shown in the following
pages, he could also be obtuse when least expected. Accordingly he
could make demands in the name of science befitting a puritan in their
stringency. He could not understand Hynek, so he claimed, and this
proved the basis for numerous squabbles over the five-year period of
McDonald's involvement in the UFO controversy.
On April 10, 1966, however, McDonald remained uncommitted to the
UFO problem. In corresponding with Malone, after the Boulder meeting,
he talked of the conflict between chairing a CAS weather modification
panel and pursuing the UFO question over the summer. He wanted to do
both, but realized he did not have the time, yet showed concern for the
fairness of the rumored panels which might be established by the
Air Force. Secretary of the Air Force Brown mentioned this panel
possibility in a three-man hearing featuring himself, Hynek and Major
Hector Quintanilla, the Blue Book officer, before Mendel Rivers' House
Armed Services Committee on April 5. McDonald concluded that a way out
might be to sit on Secretary Brown's Department of Defense panel which
would require less of his time than a one-man study, but accomplish the
same thing. To that end he wrote John Coleman at NAS to ask if this
could be arranged.
[13]
Coleman responded to this letter with a phone call in which he
briefed McDonald on the latest NAS thoughts on the UFO problem. They
were, that if the recommendations of the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Board (AFSAB) for a university study were followed, there would be no
need for NAS involvement. McDonald responded with a letter in which he
agreed with Coleman's remarks, and stated that his proposal made to the
CAS at Boulder could now be ignored.
Nonetheless, he did have reservations which stemmed from several
sources. First, he spoke with the head of the University of Arizona
Astronomy Department, Aden Meinel, who formerly sat on an ad hoc
Air Force advisory panel on UFOs with Donald Menzel of Harvard a few
years previously. According to Meinel, accounts of sightings, what
McDonald considered the heart of the problem, were not stressed.
McDonald gathered this would not be the case in the university study,
but it concerned him that a clinical psychologist, so he heard, would
be featured on the investigating team. He felt that based on the 150 or
so persons he interviewed in 30 or 40 cases that very few witnesses
needed psychological analysis. The fringe groups who made bizarre
claims needed it, but they did not, except in a small percentage of
cases, report sightings. He thought scientists like Edward Teller,
Donald Menzel and Gerard Kuiper who dismissed good sightings with
psychological explanations did so because they did not go out in the
field to interview witnesses.
He went on to point out the difficulty of getting people to report
sightings and then argued that the public announcement of the fact that
each investigative team contained a clinical psychologist would be
tantamount to saying people who make UFO reports are unbalanced. The
result would be to significantly reduce the number of reports.
He said he spelled out these points in some detail in the hope
that the letter could go via the NAS to the AFSAB and that this
might make it possible for him to assist the group preparing
plans for the university teams. McDonald toots his own horn
quite blatantly at this point by discussing his UFO work and the
academic areas of specialization which would make him an asset
to a UFO study. It seems obvious at this juncture that he
badly wanted to be a part of the forthcoming study or perhaps a
pilot study. For in a P.S. he lauds a plan put forth by Hynek
to study the 25 best authenticated cases and states that this
should really precede the university project.
[14]
Even though McDonald's involvement increased he took great care
to avoid making a public issue of it. Apparently as late as
April 20, 1966 he remained uncertain about NICAP and did not
keep Dick Hall informed of his machinations. For Hall wrote on
April 20 to ask for some weather maps and began his letter,
"There is one way that you could be particularly helpful to us
without your name being involved."
[15]
So we can conclude that
at this time McDonald continued to play his cards close to his
vest and was chary with regard to NICAP and the UFO phenomenon
in general.
Ten days after Hall's letter to McDonald the latter wrote to Jim
Hughes, his Office of Naval Research (ONR) project monitor, on
the subject of UFOs. He told Hughes that Charlie Moore, of the
New Mexico School of Mining and Engineering and Martin Uman, a
physicist with Westinghouse Research Labs, were in town for an
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers session on
atmospheric electricity and that they pursued the topic of UFOs
over dinner. Ball lightning received considerable discussion
because Uman showed interest in the similarity
between it and UFOs. Because Moore just talked at length with
Hynek he provided a summary of Hynek's UFO views.
McDonald discussed his NAS-CAS UFO activities in the letter and
mentioned the rumor that the Department of Defense went to NAS
for advice on universities and investigators for the proposed
study. He said he heard he was at the head of the list under
consideration "to tilt with the little green men." However, he
felt his Titan activities might hurt his chances with the Air
Force. At any rata he seemed pleased that the problem would be
joined, regardless of who did the research.
[16]
Dr. Brian O'Brien was a member of the NAS and Chairman of the
AFSAB ad hoc panel on UFOs which in February of 1966 recommended
a university study of UFOs to Secretary of the Air Force Brown.
McDonald knew him through his work in atmospheric physics.
Apparently they talked over the UFO problem in early May because
on the 14th McDonald wrote O'Brien a letter which shows that
O'Brien agreed to raise the summer study panel idea, which
McDonald wanted, at the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) on his
(O'Brien's) next visit. Furthermore, McDonald now wanted
O'Brien to raise the issue of him (McDonald) visiting the Blue
Book offices at WPAFB in Dayton, Ohio, to view unclassified
materials on one leg of a trip which would take him to
Washington, D.C., for a meeting of the Project Stormfury Panel
under the auspices of the Environmental Sciences Services
Administration (ESSA). McDonald emphasized his willingness "to
put a lot of effort" into a summer study of UFOs done with a
group or alone.
[17]
A cover letter written by Dr. A. Richard Kassander, Chairman of
the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, for an NASA Institutional
Grant to enable McDonald to do a summer study of UFOs is dated
May 18 and is evidence for the fact that by this time McDonald
was quite serious about looking into the phenomenon.
Kassander's letter is also interesting because of its apologetic
tone. He stated that he regretted the existence of the data,
but it would not go away and as a result of conversations with
McDonald he felt the observations could not be dismissed
lightly. He recommended the proposal because it could provide
guidelines for a future large-scale study.
[18]
In the proposal
McDonald asked for a modest $1300 in seed money to cover phone
interviews and travel expenses.
A week later Jim Hughes of the ONR informed McDonald that Jim
Kearney at Pasadena Naval Research did interesting work on laser
detection of visible and subvisible clouds. This type of
observation, thought Hughes, might account for some of the
inexplicable high-speed radar tracks of UFOs since a cloud could
appear, dissipate and reappear in another place providing the
illusion of a high-speed object. He suggested McDonald go to
WPAFB to examine the Blue Book files for cases which might fit
this category in order to develop an assessment of the problem.
Because the work was for the ONR Hughes said it would pay the
trip expenses.
[19]
This is the beginning of what would become a controversy within
a controversy. Was it pure coincidence that Hughes suggested
McDonald make the WPAFB trip at the exact time McDonald wanted
to make it? It would seem to stretch the limits of credulity,
but we will see the arguments on both sides unfold because this
won't be the last time
McDonald uses ONR atmospheric research funds for what appears to
be UFO research.
On May 26 McDonald penned a note to Hughes to thank him for the
trip and to recount an unusual call he received from WPAFB
asking for information that would enable the Air Force to obtain
a security clearance for him to view classified cases. McDonald
assured the secretary that when he spoke to General Cruikshank,
Commander of the Foreign Technology Division (FTD), that the
general stated all cases were unclassified. The secretary said
no, she listened on the extension phone and heard McDonald ask
to see the classified cases. McDonald claimed to Hughes that he
did not make the query and felt uneasy over the eavesdropping.
He said he would give serious thought to viewing classified
material before doing so.
Although he did not say so this undoubtedly reflected a concern
which exists in the UFO field as speculation and rumor, i.e.,
that if the Air Force is covering up and is worried about an
investigator getting too curious it will permit the person to
see classified material which will tell all, so to speak, but
leave the investigator silenced unless he wants to risk
prosecution for revealing classified information. Probably as
early as May 1966 McDonald considered this possibility.
This is further indicated by a discussion of the cover-up
hypothesis of Donald Keyhoe, in which McDonald told Hughes that
it would make no sense for the Air Force to staff Blue Book with
incompetent scientists if a cover-up existed. But McDonald
concluded he would only provisionally reject the cover-up
notion. This is the first sign of an internal debate which
would plague Hall and McDonald for the next
several years once McDonald reached the ETH conclusion; was the
Air Force study a cover-up or a foul-up?
In the same letter McDonald explained that when in Washington he
wished to get a briefing on the rumored Navy studies of UFOs and
he wanted to know if ONR might fund him, in terms of travel
money, for his UFO research. With respect to the NASA
Institutional Grant proposal for $1300, he believed the chances
of obtaining it were poor because Gerard Kuiper and Aden Meinel,
the only astronomers on the committee, thought little of the UFO
problem. McDonald left the impression that he intended to speak
with them privately. He suggested that Hughes pick up a copy of
the April 5 House Hearings on UFOs, probably to get Hughes
thinking positively on the UFO subject.
Also in this letter McDonald casually mentioned that he would
spend a lot of time at NICAP checking library items. This is
his first visit to NICAP and must be viewed as a considerable
escalation of his past position which consisted solely of
corresponding with Dick Hall. McDonald communicated another
first to Hughes, the belief that the UFO problem belonged at
NASA. Al Eggers, an aerodynamicist at NASA, is named as the
only possible entree who might be able to bring the matter to
the attention of individuals in higher places.
[20]
On May 27 McDonald spoke with Gerard Kuiper and found him
receptive to, or at least persuaded that, the $1300 NASA
Institutional Grant was reasonable. Later that day McDonald
jotted him a note, after he learned that the Air Force plan to
set up university investigative teams was in progress, in which
he cited his concern that this would make it more difficult to
get the problem under the aegis of NASA. He said that if Kuiper
deemed it wise he (McDonald) would contact NASA while in
Washington
from May 29 through June 5. However, he thought that the best
strategy would be to wait and discuss the problem with Kuiper
and a few of his colleagues when the former returned, since
Kuiper's word would carry more weight than his own in NASA
circles. McDonald also felt that his side trip to WPAFB would
put him in a better position to speak to the pros and cons of
the question of Air Force involvement.
[21]
He made his first trip to WPAFB to examine the Blue Book files
on June 6, 1966. At that time he viewed the 1953 Robertson
Panel report, prepared under the auspices of the CIA. The
report received routine declassification after 12 years by Major
Quintanilla, the Blue Book officer, and McDonald's note taking
received approval. In a small paragraph (written in October
1966) at the end of these notes McDonald discussed his
experience with the document. This paragraph indicates that
when he returned to WPAFB on June 30, 1966 and asked for a Xerox
of the report a Colonel Louis DeGoes informed him that it would
have to receive an authorization. On McDonald's third visit,
July 20-22, DeGoes told him that the CIA decided to reclassify
the document. Although McDonald indicated that he discussed the
CIA involvement with many colleagues and took notes on the
report, neither DeGoes nor Dr. Cacciopo, Chief Scientist at
FTD, showed any interest. So in October McDonald began to
expound on the Robertson Report in his talks.
[22]
For McDonald this was probably the beginning of his concern for
a cover-up of the UFO phenomenon. To officially confirm CIA
involvement seemed a revelation in 1966 and McDonald's lengthy
note on how it came to pass that he made the Robertson material
public suggests the gravity with which he viewed this
information.
Two weeks after he spoke with Kuiper McDonald sent him a memo
just prior to Kuiper's chairing of a meeting of the Space
Sciences Committee one morning at the University of Arizona. In
it McDonald stated that he wanted to address the Committee on
his conclusion reached while at WPAFB, namely that UFOs were
extraterrestrial.
[23]
Whether or not the address took place is
not clear from the correspondence, but this represented a
critical turning point for McDonald. He had both become
convinced of the validity of the ETH and committed himself to
his peers. From this time on the topic consumed him. Except
for short periods of time such as his participation in the SST
debate, he devoted essentially full time to the problem until
February of 1971.
Shortly after the memo to Kuiper he wrote to Tom Malone
enclosing an Oklahoma Department of Public Safety report on an
August 1965 wave of sightings and a copy of a Captain Holder's
report on the Socorro incident, an alleged landing-occupant case
which took place in New Mexico on April 24, 1964.
[24]
Of greater interest, however, is a letter from Hynek to
Secretary of the Air Force Brown which McDonald also passed
along.
[25]
His comments on it were, "Hynek felt this was a
rather daring step to write directly to Brown. I find the
letter disappointingly full of equivocations."
This is perhaps a good point to take a look at Hynek's strategy
through the use of the above-mentioned letter. It will enable
us to better understand both him and McDonald. First let us
consider the boldness of Hynek's action. Since the mid 1950s
Blue Book consisted of one officer and two enlisted men. The
Air Force viewed it primarily as a public relations effort and a
low priority project. Hynek, as the
astronomical consultant for 18 years, knew that and knew also of
the difficulty of convincing the Air Force of the anomalous
nature of UFO data. Now, as consultant to this laughing stock
project, he wrote the Secretary of the Air Force. He did so in
an indirect style which McDonald either failed to appreciate,
or refused to acknowledge.
Hynek tried to build a case that the Air Force image would be
tarnished by the abundance of UFO books about to appear and the
inadequate investigatory methods at Blue Book. He argued that
to counter NICAP and others, the best approach would be to carry
the AFSAB recommendations further and give the task of all major
UFO investigations to "nationally respected scientists." This
scientific "back up" to Blue Book, he claimed, would get the UFO
monkey off the back of the Air Force. So what Hynek felt could
not be done by direct means, i.e., the justification of a large
scientific project on the grounds that UFO data appeared
significant, he did feel might be accomplished by appealing to
what concerned the Air Force, its image.
On July 1 McDonald received a four-page letter from Herb Roth of
United Airlines (UAL) who directed the Voluntary Flight Officers
Network (VFON). This group, formed in 1963 at UAL to monitor
the reentry of space satellites, consisted of volunteer pilot
members. In January 1966 it expanded to include over 30 of the
world's largest airlines and worked in concert with the
Satellite Reentry Program of the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory. Roth wrote McDonald because he heard from Richard
Hall that McDonald advocated a program consisting of a camera in
every commercial airline cockpit to photograph UFOs which
might be encountered. Roth considered this a good idea, but
made it clear that the matter needed to be handled tactfully.
He explained how he already enlarged reporting duties to include
meteorites and any unidentified atmospheric phenomena, but that
he was careful to avoid the term UFO. Now he thought he could
get some cooperation in the carrying of cameras if he asked the
Smithsonian to recommend it on a voluntary basis to photograph
unusual atmospheric phenomena. He closed by asking for
McDonald's opinion on this plan.
[26]
July 3 found McDonald writing Colonel Louis DeGoes a quick
Sunday morning note. De Goes was with the FTD at WPAFB.
McDonald met him, along with Majors Bruce and Boyce, on his June
30 visit. They comprised the Air Force team investigating Blue
Book procedures. This investigation was the natural outgrowth
of the poor press the Air Force received from the April
Congressional Hearings, the Michigan "swamp gas" sighting
explanation, and the proposed university-sponsored study of UFOs
already in the planning stages. McDonald seemed pleased with
the intended DeGoes review, enclosed several papers and
references on ball lightening (thought to be a possible source
of some sightings) and extended his help if he could be of
assistance.
[27]
Further indication of McDonald's favorable impression of Colonel
DeGoes is found in a letter written four days later to Isabel
Davis, an old UFO investigator from the days of Civilian Saucer
Intelligence (CSI) in the early 1950s, who in the 1960s worked
with NICAP. He asked Davis if she could be persuaded, having
battled with the Air Force for some 15 years on UFOs, to make
her clipping files of sightings available to DeGoes if he
requested them. McDonald felt DeGoes and his men looked into
the UFO problem much further than Major Quintanilla, the Blue
Book
officer, and he said, "I see real hope that within the FTD
itself, there is now a chance that the real nature of the UFO
problem may be discerned." He went on to state that DeGoes
asked him to return in a consulting capacity, which he
considered a good idea. Because the rumor existed that the Air
Force was having difficulty getting scientists interested in
the independent university approach McDonald speculated that
the DeGoes effort might come up with new findings first.
McDonald also gave Davis a review of his recent activities. He
pointed out that unlike Davis he considered it necessary to
explore the "one-shot hallucination hypothesis" and to that end
discussed the possibility with Nell Bartlett the chairman of
the University of Arizona Psychology Department. Bartlett,
however, found the hallucination hypothesis untenable in light
of some of the apparently structured, coherent UFO reports
spanning extended periods of time.
This was an important issue because it hovered around the
periphery of the contactee cases (a contactee being a person
claiming contact with extraterrestrial beings). NICAP would
not touch such cases, nor at this time would it consider
occupant cases (a case where a UFO report included an alleged
description of an occupant inside a craft or on the ground, but
where no contact occurred). McDonald encountered several
occupant cases and therefore deemed it wise to examine the
possibility that they might lend themselves to a psychological
explanation. As with most new investigators he was reluctant
to entertain what he considered an exceptionally bizarre aspect
of the data, but as a scientist he also regarded it as his
obligation to scrutinize all elements of the reports.
Lastly, McDonald said he looked upon his Washington, D.C., trip
of June 29 as productive even though he did not get to brief a
group at NASA. He emphasized that he wanted to set up such a
briefing for the following week and considered it imperative to
get as many government agencies as possible interested in the
problem to avoid further future bottle ups. Results were
already visible, he claimed, in the form of rumblings from a
two-hour briefing he gave Donald Hornig, the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Branch.
[28]
On the same day McDonald got off a letter to Dick Hall also
informing him of the latest progress with DeGoes. He found
encouragement in Bill Weitzel's (an NICAP investigator)
128-page report on the Ravenna, Ohio, sightings and intended to
pass it on to DeGoes. He suggested to Hall that a
rapprochement between the Air Force and NICAP could be worked
out to the benefit of all concerned. McDonald expressed the
hope that he would be able to meet with Dr. Brian O'Brien
while in Hartford seeing Tom Malone. McDonald felt strongly
that O'Brien needed to be neutralized by opening his eyes to
the facts about UFOs since O'Brien's word pulled a great deal
of weight in Washington. O'Brien previously indicated he
thought "McDonald belonged on a couch." To this McDonald
replied he did not care what O'Brien thought except as the side
effects might impede the progress of UFO research.
[29]
The following day Hall sent off a quick note to McDonald to
report on a conversation between Lee Katchen (an atmospheric
physicist at NASA and also an NICAP Investigator) and Hynek.
According to Katchen, his call to Hynek came at a very
opportune time because Hynek claimed he had been struggling for
months with his conscience, and fears of losing his job, over
calling attention to the significance of the UFO
phenomenon. Katchen alleged his call turned the tide and as a
result Hynek planned to send a letter to Science. Hall thought
It would help if some scientists who were not affiliated with
NICAP were to call Hynek and encourage his letter-writing
effort.
In this regard it must be remembered that at this time all
concerned considered Hynek the most experienced academic UFO
investigator. Consequently they believed that his 18-year
consultantship with the Air Force and chairmanship of the
Northwestern Department of Astronomy would lend considerable
weight to the UFO cause were he ever to make his private
position a matter of public record.
Hall also confirmed the fact that Hynek spoke with U. Thant,
along with journalist John Fuller, who wrote two books on UFOs,
and Thant proved receptive to the formation of an international
study group to look at the UFO question. As an aside Hall
mentioned Hynek recently showed an interest in the relationship
of UFO sightings to power blackouts. Since the great Northeast
blackout of 1965 when concomitant UFO sightings were made and
the Exeter, New Hampshire, sightings, where UFOs were
reportedly seen hovering over power lines, many investigators
found the possible linkage intriguing. The fact that Hynek
wanted to pursue it was a positive sign to Hall.
[30]
McDonald provides an informative look at his perception of the
developing UFO scene in a response to Herb Roth, coordinator of
the VFON program at UAL. As you will recall, Roth was ready
to attempt to get pilots to carry cameras to photograph UFOs.
But McDonald cautioned him to wait a few months because in that
period of time he felt a new "official line" would be taken.
He asserted that through informal talks with people at Blue
Book, the Air Force Office of Science and Technology, NASA
and other agencies that he stimulated an uneasiness about UFOs
which would bear fruit.
[31]
McDonald was not the only one who sensed a change in the
atmosphere surrounding the study of UFO data in 1966.
Apparently in early July NICAP convened some sort of strategy
session from which emerged a campaign plan. Hall wrote
McDonald on July 12 enclosing a list of 60 scientists and
engineers interested in UFOs. He argued the list could be
used:
He also furnished McDonald with the information that Gene Rygwalski, a
mathematician with the General Electric Space Technology Center in
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and sub rosa NICAP subcommittee chairman, had
a group of scientists ready to apply for funding to look at the UFO
problem. However, Hall advised him (Rygwalski) to wait awhile because
the official Washington position seemed to be in a state of flux.
In this communication from Hall we find several indications of
the importance of recruitment of scientific talent to a borderland
subject and the manner in which it is hoarded by the recruiters. The
reason for the list was essentially leverage in argumentation and
fund-raising, but Hall pointed out that Hynek could see it at McDonald's
discretion, but not Jacques Vallee or William Powers, both protégés of
Hynek. Hall believed cooperation with Hynek a possibility, but he felt
Vallee and Powers were not interested in exchanging information
and in fact might attempt to lure the "NICAP 60" into their own
camp.
[32]
Whether this concern was well-founded is not at issue here,
however, it should be stressed that matters such as these
occupied the thoughts of most of those addressing the UFO
question at one time or another. I don't think it reflected so
much a desire to be the first to make the "big breakthrough"
everyone hoped for, as it did the fact that the symbols of
authority -- scientists interested in UFOs -- were a scarce
resource. Everyone realized this resource had to be utilized
for its propaganda value to obtain converts, influence
Congressmen, impress funding agencies and keep up the
membership of NICAP and APRO. I don't wish to leave the
impression that the technical skills these men possessed were
not also esteemed, for they were and are, but to put them to
their best use it was felt the entire UFO issue needed to be
catapulted into the realm of big time, big money science. This
could only be done, given the past history of the phenomenon,
if men of scientific stature could be convinced of the saliency
of the matter.
Although he was often bold in his undertakings McDonald's
response to Hall indicated he could be circumspect when
necessary. He told Hall that neither APRO nor the Northwestern
group would see the list of 60 scientists, however, he would
show it to Tom Malone, but not for purposes of Xeroxing.
In the same communiqué McDonald outlined his travel itinerary
for the following week. First it would be up to New York to
see Ted Bloecher, Isabel Davis and Lex Mebane (old CSI
researchers now aiding NICAP), next to Hartford, Connecticut,
to see Tom Malone and hopefully get in that talk with Brian
O'Brien, then down to Washington to see NASA people and
Jim Hughes at the ONR, and finally over to Dayton, Ohio, to take
another look at the Blue Book files. This epitomizes the
McDonald style, always on the move, continually talking and
knocking on doors. He felt he might kick himself for the trip,
"But it's undesirable to let things cool off too much without
making the rounds again and pushing people."
[33]
Word of his campaign spread rapidly in the UFO field. As
previously observed a certain friction already existed between
himself and Hynek as well as between APRO and NICAP. As would
only befit such a situation Hynek, while ostensibly neutral,
seemed to be cooperating with the Tucson-based APRO group and
McDonald worked through the Washington-based NICAP organization.
Why they did this is debatable, but we might speculate that
Hynek, as an Air Force consultant, would have found association
with NICAP incommodious because of its constant harassment of
the Air Force. On the other hand, APRO learned early that it
neither had the membership, funds, nor geographical location to
tilt with the Air Force and so fostered the image of a
research-oriented group which seemed more compatible with
Hynek's position. On several occasions McDonald intimated that
he avoided APRO most of the time because their investigatory
work did not satisfy him (he later changed his stand on this),
he couldn't get along with Coral Lorenzen, and he disliked the
acceptance of occupant cases in his early days of research.
This must have embarrassed the Lorenzens since they were
ensconced only a few miles from McDonald's home and naturally a
certain antipathy developed. It might also be appropriate to
remember that McDonald had already jousted with the Air Force,
enjoyed a good Donnybrook, and could get into one through NICAP,
but not through APRO.
At any rate, on a rare occasion when he called APRO for
information on a case in early July 1966, he let it be known,
perhaps in passing, but probably to stir up Hynek, that he
visited WPAFB. Subsequently, in a letter to Hynek, Coral
Lorenzen warned him that between McDonald trying to carve a
niche for himself in the UFO field, the Air Force looking for a
goat for its ineptness, NICAP moving toward a scientific foul-up
stance, and McDonald accusing Hynek of timidity in his role as
Air Force consultant, that Hynek could be left holding the bag
when the issue finally broke.
[34]
In his continuing effort to get the FTD at WPAFB to see the
light about Blue Book inadequacies McDonald sent a summary of
the April 17, 1966 Ravenna, Ohio, case to Dr. Anthony Cacciopo
the scientist at FTD responsible for Blue Book. He also asked
Cacciopo to read Bill Weitzel's 128-page report which NICAP
forwarded and to peruse a 17-page tape transcript of Major
Quintanilla, the Blue Book head, interrogating the witnesses.
McDonald believed that the transcript in particular would show
up the glaring incompetence typified by Quintanilla.
[35]
This was a period of excitement for McDonald. He informed Hall
of his travel plans which would eventually get him to Dayton.
He said he viewed as positive the fact that DeGoes and his two
Major review team would be out at Rand at the time of his visit.
He felt it could be a significant development. It would be some
time before he would learn otherwise.
[36]
Five days subsequently McDonald received the first academic
encouragement to continue his UFO work. Dr. A. B. Weaver,
Chairman of the Space Sciences Committee at the University of
Arizona, officially informed him of the positive recommendation
given his $1300 proposal for
an NASA Institutional Grant.
[37]
This grant, while small,
facilitated much of McDonald's early telephonic interview work
on old cases.
At the time that the above announcement arrived McDonald was on
his Hartford-Washington-Dayton trip. On July 20 he wrote up a
summary of the trip's highlights while still at WPAFB. He
preferred getting as many facts as possible on paper in order to
jog his mind loose of details and to keep his friends informed
of his progress. This letter provides insight into the planning
of the Air Force sponsored university contracted UFO project,
McDonald's perception of Blue Book, and the role Hynek played in
the Blue Book investigation.
The letter reveals that during his stay in Washington McDonald
met with Dr. J. T. Ratchford of the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research (AFOSR) whose job it was to place the UFO
contract at a university and Dr. William Price, Executive
Director of AFOSR, to whom Ratchford reported. The discussion,
after McDonald explained his views on UFOs and Blue Book, and in
the process watered down his ETH convictions, focused on the
difficulties involved in placing the project at a university.
The projected study was to consist of a lead university with a
principal investigator and scientific team in residence, but
also field teams at other universities; they wanted a principal
investigator with first-rate credentials who could spend
full-time on the project. McDonald indicated that this would be
an extremely hard post to fill because of the nature of the
subject and because top quality scientists were usually up to
their ears in their own work and would not have the time.
Nevertheless, he offered, and according to him. Price accepted,
his proposition to go on the road as a traveling salesman, so to
speak,
to cajole any lukewarm prospects for the principal investigator
position into taking it.
After some talk by Ratchford about the response of groups like
NICAP and APRO to a non-extraterrestrial explanation of UFO
sightings and McDonald's assurance that he personally would get
behind a well-done scientific negation of the data, the
conversation turned to what McDonald deemed a strange topic --
the political leanings of the principal investigator. He wrote
Malone, and told Hughes in conversation, that he never heard of
avoiding a rightist or a leftist in choosing a project director,
but realized that Ratchford and Price articulated such concerns
because they misread (he felt) the nature of the UFO problem.
They assumed that all the public discontent originated from
kooks and cultists who somehow were also politically far left or
right. Consequently, both Price and Ratchford believed that
should an extremist head the project his conclusions would be
written off by the public. McDonald indicated that he tried to
convey to Price and Ratchford that there were good scientific
grounds for criticism of the Air Force handling of the UFO
matter and concluded to Malone that they (Price and Ratchford)
were just naive about the problem.
The same day McDonald visited NASA and wrote, "I think we have
now planted the seeds at NASA." He said he received a warm
reception from the people at the Advanced Research and
Technology Division: Ben Holzman, George Deutsch and James
Danberg, Research Division, and Mason Charak and Conrad Mook,
Space Vehicle Research and Technology. He discussed the
possibility of the ETH with respect to UFOs and argued that the
problem belonged at NASA, accentuating what it could mean for
NASA appropriations. He told Malone the latter point did not go
unappreciated.
As it turned out McDonald also briefed a Joe Fletcher from RAND
(the Air Force think tank) who he just happened to meet in the
elevator at NASA and who Holzman belatedly, so he said, invited
to the meeting. As fate would have it Fletcher knew that
Colonel DeGoes and the two Majors from WPAFB were at Rand to
discuss UFOs. McDonald regarded the coincidental meeting with
Fletcher as worthy of rumination. Was it so coincidental?
Regardless, it pleased him that NASA knew he briefed the Air
Force (Price and Ratchford) and that the Air Force, through
Fletcher, would know that he visited NASA. A little friendly
competition, thought McDonald, might push the issue to a
speedier resolution.
The next topic for Malone's information was McDonald's Blue Book
visit. First a paragraph on how he managed to bully Major
Quintanilla into agreeing to change the Ravenna, Ohio, case (the
128-page Weitzel reported sighting) to unidentified. Then it
was time to pursue one of McDonald's preoccupations, the
determination of Hynek's role in the UFO affair. He asked
Quintanilla a lot of questions about Hynek because after his
(McDonald's) June 7 trip to Blue Book he visited Hynek in a
righteously indignant mood and harangued him concerning his past
actions as Blue Book consultant and his failure to alert the
scientific community to the significance of the UFO data.
Now through his questioning of Quintanilla he began to build a
stronger case for Hynek's timidity. Quintanilla showed
amusement at Hynek's claim that the Air Force compelled him to
go along with its policy which, according to Hynek, stifled his
initiatives. Quintanilla claimed that if he were the bottleneck
to Hynek's plans, what about the other five or six Blue Book
officers Hynek worked with over the years? As far as Hynek's
claim that he couldn't get by Quintanilla to see
Cacciopo (the chief project scientist) or General Cruikshank,
Quintanilla said Hynek did see Cacciopo. Consequently,
McDonald's suspicions of Hynek, based on his own look at the
data, Hynek's remarks in Evanston on June 8 and now
Quintanilla's rejoinders to those remarks, began to crystallize
in a none-too-flattering portrait. McDonald even entertained
the possibility that Hynek used the Air Force for the $5000 per
year consulting fee with no intent to pursue the scientific
problem of UFOs.
[38]
It should be emphasized, however, that at this stage of his
campaign McDonald knew little about Quintanilla or Hynek,
particularly Hynek's quiet behind-the-scenes attempts to obtain
changes at Blue Book without making too many waves. He was
quick to condemn Hynek on grounds having to do with a
scientist's public trust and obligation to science as an ongoing
institution. Yet, what he failed to question were Quintanilla's
own statements. Did Quintanilla, for instance, have his own
reasons for wanting to show Hynek in a poor light? Was
Quintanilla himself incompetent, as McDonald already alleged in
another context and would this fact prejudice his remarks?
Moreover, did a man such as Hynek, with at least a light hand on
the pulse of the UFO issue for 18 years, have his own subtle
strategy for dealing with the UFO problem?
Present at the June 8 Evanston meeting was Jacques Vallee, a
protég&ecute; of Hynek's in the sense that he came to Northwestern as
a student, but who in fact did much more published work on the
UFO problem than Hynek himself. At this time Vallee was about
to finish his Ph.D. in Computer Science. He wrote McDonald on
July 20 to thank him for some material and to explain that he
would return to Europe in a week to interact with scientists
there who had investigated UFOs for years, but were even more
reticent in their public statements than their counterparts
in America. He told McDonald that his access to Blue Book
through Hynek and his indirect knowledge of APRO and NICAP cases
made him conclude that European data was more accurate and
better defined.
On McDonald's view that the villain in all this was Blue Book,
Vallee could not agree. He saw no reason to back the public
attack on Blue Book that McDonald wanted because he failed to
see the efficacy of it. He believed the lack of adequate study
was largely the fault of the scientific community and therefore
only agreed to cooperate in McDonald's strategy of informing
scientists about the problem on his return in September. It
would be up to McDonald to attack the Air Force.
[39]
While Vallee penned his missive, McDonald rummaged around the
Blue Book offices at WPAFB for the third time in a little less
than two months. His certainty that something was amiss
continually increased. Concurrently he believed that he could
work hand-in-hand with Colonel DeGoes' review of Blue Book and
get corrective feedback into the system. To that end he wrote a
six-page single-spaced memo to DeGoes before leaving WPAFB in
which he spelled out some of his complaints and suggestions.
In his first point he raised five cases which he looked at and
felt deserved further investigation. Then in his second point
he alluded to a radar case of August 1965 in which good returns
were allegedly received on a number of military radar scopes
only to be denied and called unreliable the next day. McDonald
asked, "Did someone remember AFR 200-2 the following day and
clam up? Or was it really correct that no reliable Air Force
radar fixes were obtained?" Here McDonald raised the old
cover-up specter based on Air Force Regulation
|
|
200-2 which made disclosure of a UFO sighting by Air Force
personnel subject to ten years in prison and/or $10,000 fine.
This might not have been a wise course of action, for even if
the Air Force did not have skeletons in its closet, they now
know he suspected they might, and above all else they did have a
public image to uphold which criticism from a respected
atmospheric physicist could only tend to tarnish.
However, McDonald went further. He wrote several hundred words
about the famous Socorro, New Mexico, report in his third point.
Socorro was a touchy issue with the Air Force because it was an
alleged landing of a craft, with occupants seen on the ground at
a distance of less than 200 feet, by an on-duty policeman. Now
McDonald wanted to exhume this 1964 case, which the Air Force
wished to forget, based on further work done on it by Charlie
Moore of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. So
McDonald, in effect, suggested the revival of a case many UFO
researchers considered one of the best ever recorded in the
United States.
But this was not the end of his recommendations. He laid out
the circumstantial evidence for the relationship between the
1965 Northeast power blackout and UFO sightings and stated that
many similar incidents on a smaller scale needed probing. He
made it clear that if the remotest possibility of the
relationship existed the Air Force would be in default if it did
not examine the matter.
His other points of interest included a proposal that DeGoes
contact Vallee before the latter left for Europe so that DeGoes
could obtain a pre- and post-trip briefing on the European UFO
situation. Then he went into an extensive discourse on the
"swamp gas" explanation proposed by Hynek for the 1966 Dexter,
Michigan, sightings. McDonald provided
considerable chemical detail to drive home his belief that the
explanation lacked credibility and also tried to play upon the
Air Force public image, as Hynek often did, as a reason for
reanalysis of the case. He asserted the Air Force position
stood on a sentence in a freshman chemistry text. If Hynek
could not bolster it with substantial scientific documentation
he argued the explanation should be withdrawn, "because the Air
Force looks pretty silly on this one."
McDonald closed by bringing up his meeting with Rand's Fletcher
at NASA and his talks with Price and Ratchford at AFOSR, no
doubt to put what he considered pressure on DeGoes.
[40]
He did
not seem to realize that the positions he espoused, while held
by a number of reputable scientists, would never be aired,
particularly by people at Blue Book, which functioned primarily
as a public relations project and not an investigatory
body.
[41]
He would soon learn this the hard way and would
adjust his strategy and tactics accordingly.
One obtains a good feeling for Hynek's position on all this in a
July 26 letter to the Lorenzens. He thanked them for the
information on McDonald's WPAFB activities, but said he knew
about them and it pleased him to have McDonald running
interference for him. This made it possible for him to make
requests at WPAFB he could not have made previously. On the
other hand, he deemed McDonald rude and incapable of scientific
cooperation, so much so that after their June 8 meeting he said
he would not give McDonald the time of day. Lastly, he asked
the Lorenzens to dig around to see how McDonald managed to
finance his research.
[42]
So a definite rivalry had developed between Hynek and McDonald.
Although Hynek moved toward a resolution of the UFO question in
a
circumspect fashion for many years. It was not his style to
proceed as a bull in a china shop. Then along came the bull in
the form of McDonald, who quickly became convinced that
scientific pay dirt existed within the UFO data and that it was
only Hynek's lack of intestinal fortitude which kept this
knowledge from the scientific community. The further he went
the more sinister Hynek appeared and the greater the clash in
scientific styles -- their personal politics of science --
became.
Two letters from Martin Uman of Westinghouse Labs suggest that
McDonald made a few inroads with him. Uman indicated his latest
reading included Vallee's The Anatomy of a Phenomenon, NICAP's
UFO Evidence and John Fuller's Incident at Exeter. Uman's
interest in UFOs stemmed from his work on ball lightning, a
phenomenon regarded by some, principally Philip Klass of
Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine, as the cause of
many UFO reports. Uman suggested to McDonald that clear air
ball lightning, that is ball lightning not associated with
thunder storms, was a real possibility.
[43]
In his second letter he enclosed a wallet-sized slide-like device for
identifying the color spectrum of UFOs. He called it the first
UFO experiment and said he could discriminate between types of
streetlights with it.
[44]
Although this study is on McDonald there are points where the
temptation to follow J. Allen Hynek is strong as witnessed by a
number of previous references. I am resisting this as much as
possible because the material on Hynek, in my estimation, is
incomplete and the scope of the work itself would become too
broad were Hynek pursued closely. Nevertheless, there are
instances where his actions are important to the narrative and
in such situations they will be included.
Hynek contacted the Lorenzens at what he judged an historic time
in August 1966. He wrote a letter to Science on UFOs which was
initially rejected and then accepted when Hynek, it is rumored,
made a veiled threat to the effect that he might make a public
issue of the rejection.
[45]
Moreover, he wrote the foreword to
Vallee's new book Challenge to Science and wrote an invited
piece for the British journal Discovery on UFOs. It tells us
something about the nature of the scientific community, of Hynek
himself and the atmosphere surrounding the practice of
borderland science when Hynek states, "I feel like Luther
nailing his theses to the Church door." It also pleased him that
these public displays of his position would throw a wrench into
McDonald's anti-Hynek campaign.
[46]
As all the above took place another element in the scientific
drama evolving around UFOs already simmered in Boulder,
Colorado, home of the University of Colorado. The Air Force
wanted to find a university to take on the UFO study advocated
by the AFSAB in February 1966. The Air Force approached the
University of Colorado and on August 9, 1966 the then assistant
dean Robert Low wrote a memo to E. James Archer, Dean of the
Graduate School, and Thurston E. Manning, Vice-President and
Dean of Faculties, to report on the pros and cons of accepting
such a contract. It eventually became known as the "Trick Memo"
and an article appeared in Look Magazine by John Fuller devoted
to it.
[47]
This would not surface until May 1968, but what is
important now is not what many of the conspiracy oriented UFO
investigators enjoy emphasizing, that the memo is proof the
project was a whitewash, but rather the politics of science so
blatantly evident in the memo.
For the memo Low queried a number of people at the university,
at the Environmental Sciences Services Administration (ESSA) and
at the
National Council for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), all located in
Boulder, and tried to encapsulate their views. Louis Branscomb
a professor of physics at CU and now president of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) seemed most
concerned about the image of the university.
He opposed the project for a number of reasons, but the most
important seemed to be that to approach it objectively the
validity of the observations would have to be given credence.
This, he thought, would call into question many established
physical laws, put the work beyond the pale and lose the
university more prestige than it could possibly gain by
accepting the project. He believed one feasible strategy might
be for the NAS to accept the Air Force contract and then
subcontract the money to CU.
Gordon Little of the ESSA felt that sometimes a project like the
one proposed by the Air Force had to be accepted because of
national need regardless of the risks. However, in this case he
failed to see the significance of the national need.
On the other hand, Walter Roberts, head of NCAR, tried to get
Will Kellogg, the associate director, to take it on, but Kellogg
felt too committed to assume the responsibility. Roberts
thought the project was urgent, that CU should take it on, and
that no kook stigma would be attached to doing so.
Low wrote up his own comments which in my estimation do not so
much reek of a whitewash as they do of a promotional effort to
convince Archer, Manning and the Board of Regents that the
university could take the contract and not get burned. I think
the infamous paragraphs deserve quoting:
[48]
The analogy with ESP, Rhine and Duke is only partially
valid. The Duke study was done by believers who, after
they had finished, convinced almost no one. Our study would
be conducted almost exclusively by nonbelievers, 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 almost a 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 UFOs. If the emphasis were put
here, rather than on the examination of the old question
of the physical reality of the saucers I think the
scientific community would quickly get the message.
There is another reason, it seems to me, to do this. Except in a field like optical meteorology, I can't imagine a paper coming out of the study that would be publishable in a prestigious physical science journal. I can quite easily imagine, however, that psychologists, sociologists and psychiatrists might well generate scholarly publications as a result of their investigations of the saucer observers. I have not, of course, heard the story presented by the Air Force people. That comes Wednesday morning, the 10th. Ed Condon and Will Kellogg have heard it, however, and they say the project is presented in a very reasonable light. It is premature to have such an opinion, but 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. At least, it ought not to be rejected out of hand.
It is important to present this now in order to obtain a sense
of the thinking taking place at CU and, in particular, on the
part of Bob Low who would eventually become administrator of the
UFO project. The pot was beginning to boil with big money at
stake. The UFO issue was getting hot thanks to prodding by
McDonald and Hynek and the AFSAB recommendations stemming from
the O'Brien Panel of February 1966. It
would appear that to some no amount of money could make the risk
of prestige necessary in accepting the project worth it, but
others such as Low seemed to be planning on how to make the best
of it. From this point until well after the project report
became public in January 1969 the study remained a central
concern to McDonald. He offered his advice, gave it, criticized
the project administration, contributed to the firing of two
staff members, participated in an expose article in Look
Magazine on the "Trick Memo" and finally rechecked the
investigatory work contained in the final draft -- and stumped
the country speaking out against it.
However, at the time of the Low memo McDonald continued his
efforts to stimulate interest in the UFO data. He spoke with
people at NASA in the Office of Advanced Research and Technology
on July 19, and, as promised, followed up his talk with
recommendations to Dr. A. J. Eggers. He prefaced his remarks
with statements about his own research and what he called the
almost unavoidable conclusion that UFOs were extraterrestrial
and probably under intelligent control. He suggested that a
NASA panel:
[49]
Although McDonald began his campaign in a subdued fashion, by
mid-August he threw some of his caution to the winds, for in a
letter to Dick Hall he brought up the possibility of an article
for Look Magazine. However, he said John Fuller's articles
would come out in September so
the Look editor would not be interested in other pieces for
several months. He indicated exploration of other alternatives
was already in progress.
Concomitantly McDonald began to branch out with his message at
the University of Arizona. He mentioned a talk he planned to
give to the Physics Department in a few weeks, to which he hoped
to get several astronomers and psychologists with whom he
previously spoke.
[50]
The first hint of what eventually proved to be a major fly in
his ointment came in the form of a letter from Hall in which he
discussed an editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology
Magazine. Philip Klass, who interviewed Hall at NICAP and
posited his own ball lightning hypothesis for the explanation,
according to Klass, of 80 to 90 percent of UFO observations.
Klass told Hall that he wanted to attract a lot of scientists to
the study of UFOs and Hall felt because of Klass' prestigious
position and connections it was worth cultivating him in order
to dissuade him from the ball lightning theory.
The subject changed to Hynek in the same letter. Hall wanted to
meet with Hynek and various sociologists and psychologists in
the Chicago area now that Hynek had "come out" in his Science
letter and asked for participation of social scientists in the
UFO problem. This could easily be arranged because Bob Hall,
Dick's brother, taught in the Sociology Department at the
University of Illinois. From the tone of Hall's remarks it
would seem that he and McDonald already discussed exposing
Hynek's former position of circumspection, for now Hall argued
it would be inappropriate to do so, but possibly later, should
Hynek attempt an ex post facto doctoring of the historical
record.
[51]
During the month of September McDonald made the decision to go
public. Much of the planning evidently took place over the
phone because the first indication of this turn about, other
than the August 25, 1966 letter to Hall, came in a September 27
strategy letter from Hall. McDonald did not know how to
undertake his "coming out" and so it was quite natural to find
that Hall, who managed various NICAP publicity campaigns
providing advice. In using this tactic they wanted to focus as
much publicity as possible on a reputable scientist, with well
above-average credentials, who considered the UFO question a
significant scientific problem. This is essentially what
McDonald felt Hynek should have done many years before.
To make clear that this was not an amateurish affair on the part
of NICAP or McDonald I think going into it in some detail is in
order. The discussion revolved around the efficacy of a press
conference versus interviews. In the above note Hall tried to
present what he accomplished to that point and the available
options. Speaker of the House McCormack, who conducted UFO
hearings in 1958, received word to expect a letter from
McDonald, Howard Simon at the Washington Post wanted to talk,
Phil Klass desired an interview, as did Jean Smith of the local
NBC-TV news. Hall said this was as far as he wished to go until
he heard further from McDonald.
He would alert the Christian Science Monitor and the
Wall Street Journal believing it best to concentrate on
"major national newspapers, networks and syndicates," i.e.,
Bulkley Griffin of the Northeast syndicate, Reuters
(a good contact there), UPI (their expert a personal friend),
AP (the aviation editor has an interest), Mutual Broadcasting
System radio (a good contact there). Locally McDonald could
do Jean Smith's
WRC-TV news. Herb Davis' WEEL show and spots on the ABC and CBS
affiliates. So Hall left it in McDonald's hands, either a press
conference or numerous interviews.
[52]
Shortly McDonald got a response to the spade work conducted by
Hall in Washington. He received a reprint from Phil Klass of
his Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine ball lightning
article which appeared August 22, 1966. McDonald felt not only
obliged to respond with a letter to Klass on the development of
his own position on the UFO question, but also with a rebuttal
letter to the editor of Aviation Week picking apart what he
called flaws in Klass' argument.
In his first paragraph McDonald thanked Klass for opening up
Aviation Week to a UFO debate, but then talked down to him by
asserting his own expertise in "meteorological and physical
matters" which by implication he intended as adequate rebuttal
to Klass, for in the next sentence he made it clear that except
for a very small percentage of cases UFOs could not be accounted
for by ball lightning or plasmoid processes.
He tried to impress Klass with the total scientific inadequacy
of the Blue Book operation. He apprised him of his talks with
Colonel DeGoes and Hynek, but showed concern that the DeGoes
panel "had clammed up" and he didn't know their conclusions.
McDonald asserted that shortly he would publicly make a
statement writing off as meaningless the last ten years of Blue
Book work.
[53]
In the enclosed letter to the editor McDonald argued that an
occasional UFO might be a case of ball lightning, but his
extensive studies convinced him "that neither ball lightning
nor meteoric events
nor any other known geophysical or astronomical phenomena seem
remotely sufficient to account for the UFOs."
McDonald continued with some debatable reasons why ball
lightning was a poor UFO candidate, talked about the poorly
labeled ball lightning cases at Blue Book and then launched into
an excoriation of the Air Force handling of UFOs which was
"seriously lacking in scientific content." Then he dropped his
bombshell by saying "the hypothesis that these may be
extraterrestrial objects engaged in something that might be
regarded as reconnaissance operations slowly emerges as the most
acceptable hypothesis." He closed by hoping that Aviation Week
would call for a review of the available UFO evidence.
[54]
So as early as September 1966 McDonald was prepared to publicly
endorse the ETH.
Aviation Week never printed the letter, yet it marked the
beginning of the Klass-McDonald debate. McDonald felt it
necessary to cut down an unqualified avionics editor, who though
a scientific upstart, could have considerable literary clout
through his space industry trade publication. Klass, on the
other hand, viewed McDonald as a kook scientist who went off the
deep end and might make an interesting story. To complicate
matters even further, Klass' ball lightning-plasma hypothesis
relied on a phenomenon itself only recently rescued from the
waste bin of bizarre notions. And, needless to say, after
expending extensive time and effort on his work, as had
McDonald, Klass had a very real personal stake in the outcome of
the debate. Much more will be heard from this duo as the story
progresses.
On September 29 Hall again tried to firm up McDonald's "coming
out" plans. It should be kept in mind that NICAP as well as
APRO endeavored
for years to obtain scientific recognition for the UFO
phenomenon and continually fell short because, they felt, no
well-known scientist was willing to touch it. Now, however,
NICAP had found the man who might "blow it all open" in an
atmosphere already charged with rumors of a university study of
UFOs. It is easy to see, then, why Hall pursued the matter
vigorously.
After enumerating several members of the media who would
cooperate he cited other avenues which needed to be examined.
First the staff at the Saturday Evening Post felt McDonald
should submit an outline of his proposed article and second Hall
believed, since McDonald already contacted U.S. News and World
Report on the possibility of an article, that he should inform
them of his plans to go public as well as other national news
magazines.
[55]
McDonald, although in high gear, retained some reservations
about going public, which I think is a fair interpretation of
his September 29 letter to Colonel DeGoes. I think he actually
felt that he could threaten the Air Force sufficiently to
blackmail Blue Book into mending its ways if its image risked
being tarnished by rigorous criticism from a prominent
scientist.
McDonald opened his letter casually asking for some ball
lightning references he loaned DeGoes, then he expressed
disappointment that the cases he suggested for reclassification
did not get reclassified. Whereupon in one sentence he let out
what galled him most, namely the fact that his July 22 six-page
single-spaced memo to DeGoes remained unanswered.
He concluded that lack of communication meant the Air Force did
not want changes at Blue Book. He said he would publicly make
the same
strong scientific criticisms of the handling of the UFO problem
by the Air Force as he had made in private to Dr. Cacciopo and
General Cruikshank and that he wanted this message passed along
to Dr. Cacciopo.
[56]
There is also the overtone that McDonald knew that Cacciopo
didn't want to be left holding the bag if the UFO data actually
contained any scientific pay dirt. Since Cacciopo was in
charge, scientifically, of Blue Book and about forty other Air
Force projects at WPAFB, McDonald probably thought making known
his threat to take a strong stand on such a bizarre issue might
light a fire under him.
The next day McDonald sent off a six-page letter to Hall on the
strategy and tactics of his scheduled October 19 presentation as
well as his future plan of attack regarding Congressional
Hearings. The general points which he wanted to cover in his
own words were:
On the nature of the press coverage involved, McDonald wanted
Hall to decide on the best approach for NICAP and the UFO issue
in the long run. Essentially on the horns of a dilemma, he
didn't want to be branded a publicity seeker, and yet publicity
was just what the issue needed. He said he didn't mind the
large press conference approach because he thought he could
control it, but he said, "It's the difficulty that if you begin
to look like your goal is to get plastered over front pages you
lose effectiveness with both scientists and Congress, the ones
we want to influence."
With regard to radio and TV McDonald wanted to make appearances,
but he wished to avoid any sensationalism or Johnny Carson type
talk show formats. He felt radio and TV presentations would be
criticized by many scientists and Air Force slanted officials
and consequently needed to be carried off with a low profile.
Then he went into his local Tucson tactics. He planned an
October 5 talk in which he would make the same points as in
Washington, D.C. He intended to do this on the advice of his
local news bureau people. They contacted two newspapers in
Tucson, one in Phoenix, a local UPI stringer and the local AP
man, all of whom were very interested. McDonald preferred the
press conference for reasons of efficiency, but
felt it would "go over like a lead balloon" in Tucson and so
decided on personal interviews.
He would follow the talk of the 5th by another, "Atmospheric
Physics and the UFOs," on October 6 to a Department of
Meteorology colloquium at the UA. Then there was a possibility
of working in a talk while at the University of Washington where
.he was scheduled to discuss weather modification. As McDonald
put it, "may not eventuate, but from here on out the objective
will be to spread the word in any good way that affords itself."
He regretted the responsibility of his cloud physics course
because he believed he should be spending twelve hours a day
"boning up on UFO case material."
He thought that the degree of press coverage obtained by his
October 5 talk should determine the amount of energy he would
put into a letter-writing campaign to Congressmen. He intended
to write McCormack, Ford, Rivers, Hutchinson, Stanton, Vivian
and most of the Arizona delegation. The thrust of the attack
would be to get Congressional Hearings which would move the UFO
question from the Air Force to NASA. He hoped NICAP would
encourage its 10,000 plus membership to engage in a concurrent
letter-writing campaign.
[57]
At this juncture I think McDonald considered himself to be
historically weak on the UFO phenomenon. His WPAFB exploits,
trips to NICAP, talks with Hynek and case investigations led him
to the ETH, however, he knew he was only familiar with the tip
of the iceberg. In order to remedy his deficiency he tried to
do his homework as rapidly as possible prior to his "coming
out." He doesn't mention this, but I am certain it occurred him
that he could look ridiculous if asked detailed questions on a
"significant" case of which he had not heard. All of
this, of course, at a supposedly momentous press conference
where he was the touted authority on UFOs.
To this end he asked Hall some substantive questions in his letter
of October 1. Hall's response consisted of considerable background
material:
[58]
The same day McDonald, still hoping I think to blackmail his way
off the cross, wrote a letter to Tom Ratchford at AFOSR. He
mentioned essentially the same things he put to DeGoes about
being disappointed in Blue Book, the lack of communication with
him (McDonald), the de facto rejection of his offer to sell the
university team approach to prominent scientists, Ratchford's
lack of contact with NICAP, and McDonald's belief that the
problem belonged at NASA.
In conclusion he again stated that he felt a scientific obligation
to speak out on UFOs, that this would entail strong criticism of the
Air Force and include demands for radical changes in the handling of
the entire UFO matter.
[59]
More of McDonald's thinking falls into place when we view some of
his comments to Tom Malone. He argued that the most recent Pentagon
Public Information Office release on UFOs (September 1) showed
absolutely no change in policy. The DeGoes panel seemed
moribund and therefore he decided to give up on the Air Force.
It seemed the only way to get the problem out on the table would
be to make the Air Force dirty linen public.
He filled Malone in on his plans and then turned to Hynek's
letter to Science which only asked for greater attention to be
given UFOs and yet did not publish. McDonald heard Hynek went
to a columnist with the letter and got it published in a batch
of papers along with a protest to Science which resulted in
Philip Abelson, the editor of Science, calling Hynek to tell him
that if the letter were shortened it would be published.
[60]
Although Hynek did apply some pressure to get his letter into
Science, in fact he did not get it into a newspaper, which
illustrates the manner in which rumor spreads and is exaggerated
when the scientific stakes are high.
[61]
Although McDonald verged on going public, Hall dropped him an
infuriated note to indicate his displeasure with the effort as a
whole. Hynek, who seemed to be making a turnabout, was quoted
in the NICAP Investigator as saying the Air Force research on
UFOs did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. However, when the
Washington Post queried him on his comments he said the quote
was taken out of context. On another front Klass of Aviation
Week appeared to be on the attack. This time it was Hall and
NICAP, according to Hall, who were totally misrepresented in an
October 3 Aviation Week article based on an interview Hall gave
to Klass.
[62]
Probably at this point both Hall and McDonald
realized that Klass was not just another journalist with a
casual interest in UFOs, but an adversary of formidable
proportions.
McDonald gave his presentations on October 4 and 5. The only
correspondence he received from interested scientists was a
letter from Gerard Kuiper of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory
at the UA. He made several objections to McDonald's argument
for the ETH. He first suggested that a few poor explanations
of unknowns were hardly strong evidence. He then said that,
given the difficulty of making one launch to the moon, the
probability of multiple independent launches from other planets
to Earth was unlikely. He further went on "tongue in cheek" to
say he would prefer to believe that the ghosts of the Aztecs or
Incas were returning to this planet than question the validity
of the law of the conservation of energy on the basis of a few
reports from untrained observers. He closed with a good
conservative statement. "In my judgment the only defensible
position a scientist can take here is that there are
unexplained (terrestrial) atmospheric phenomena."
[63]
In McDonald's reply he asserted that in a short talk it was not
possible to present the "body of evidence" pointing in the
direction of the ETH, which he emphasized was only an
hypothesis. He must have shocked Kuiper considerably when he
proposed the most likely alternative hypothesis to be an
unexplained psychic phenomenon. McDonald showed his awareness
of the precariousness of his scientific position when he said,
"That publicly espousing such an hypothesis (the ETH) even in
the pussyfooting language of 'least undesirable hypothesis,' is
professionally risky, is very clear to me." From this comment
it is probably safe to surmise that McDonald still did not see
the UFO issue as becoming an all consuming endeavor which would
result in his production of research papers dropping from 64
between 1951 and 1966 to zero between 1967 and 1971.
[64]
Although McDonald was familiar with press coverage, he
expressed surprise at the results of his Tucson "coming out,"
and in fact began to reconsider his Washington plans. He wrote
Hall that he groaned at the press errors, but that some of his
points did come across in the Phoenix and Tucson stories;
however, the Los Angeles Times included a statement that
he believed in "persons from outer space" and the AP wire story
asserted he believed in contemporary CIA involvement. This
made McDonald wonder about the efficacy of using the mass media
in the UFO campaign. He said he didn't mind standing up for a
far-out view, but he didn't like being made a fool of through
misquotes and slanted remarks.
Consequently, he stated to Hall that he refused all local media
coverage for the past several days and did only one ten-minute
spot for CBS News in New York. He said he wanted to reduce the
number of the press at his Washington talk to good nationally
syndicated people, but realized the paradox that almost all the
people Hall suggested fitted that description. He concluded
that he would leave the arrangements up to Hall who should tone
down the CIA angle and make the discussion turn on the
scientific inadequacy of Blue Book.
On the local scientific front feedback from McDonald's
colleagues proved negative, so he said, and they showed concern
for the reputation of the UA. Undeterred McDonald planned to
give a talk to the Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Seminar
on October 11 and looked forward to a colloquium in the
Psychology Department. It would appear that he wanted to cite
the reactions, which he expected to be "snorts," from both
groups in his Washington talk.
Also he raised an aspect of the possible, in his mind, cover-up
problem. The negatives of some photos he knew of were allegedly
confiscated by the FBI and some Polaroid prints from California
were supposedly lost by the Air Force. McDonald thought NICAP
should make a list of such incidents for future reference.
Evidently the possibility of a large-scale governmental
cover-up of the UFO problem was no longer a matter of idle
curiosity for him.
Referring to Klass, McDonald felt that his article was full of
holes. Based on Klass' memo McDonald said, "don't think I'm
going to like him either."
[65]
McDonald sensed a battle or at least a skirmish in the air.
However, he did not know that Klass relished a good battle as
much as he did and possibly more. Klass prepared for McDonald
as McDonald prepared for him, but I believe Klass viewed
McDonald as big game deserving of equally large bore
ammunition, whereas McDonald seemingly underestimated Klass as
an upstart, but one who would adhere to the generally accepted
forms of academic combat.
The following day McDonald submitted a report to Dr. A. B.
Weaver, Chairman of the Space Sciences Committee, which
provided him with the $1300 seed money to begin his studies.
McDonald informed the committee of the $400 he spent on phone
interviewing, his proposed talk at the D.C. chapter of the
American Meteorological Association and his campus colloquia
activities. Probably looking to future funding from the same
committee he pointed out that he had not sought support
elsewhere.
[66]
On October 15 a press release announced that Dr. E. U. Condon,
a respected physicist, past director of the National Bureau of
Standards, past President of the AAAS and American Physical
Society, would head the Air Force funded study which would take
place at the University of Colorado. Although attempts to
obtain a university and principal
investigator began in May it seems more than coincidental that
just as McDonald prepared to go public and prior to what he
anticipated to be a significant Washington talk, that the Air
Force took the wind out of his sails with its announcement.
No doubt Condon had little idea of what was in store for him.
However, he probably received an inkling from the three-page
letter Hall sent him on the nature of NICAP and its position
on UFOs. In it Hall did a number of things:
Hall said that Condon's agnostic position was fine, NICAP only
wanted the thorough and impartial investigation which the Air
Force failed to provide. Then he went into the nature of UFO
data problems and most importantly offered to provide
evaluations of the kooks and frauds in the field.
[67]
What Condon thought is anyone's guess, but based on his later
statements it would seem likely that he found it a bit
incongruous for a group supporting the ETH to offer its
services to evaluate kooks and frauds when the position of
NICAP itself must have struck him as bizarre.
It pleased McDonald that the Colorado program appeared to be
taking shape with the aid of NCAR and ESSA. He wrote Tom
Ratchford at AFOSR to
thank him for a copy of AFR 80-17, an Air Force regulation
governing the reporting of UFOs. He expressed his delight
that a scientist of Condon's standing would head the
project, but of course felt compelled to proffer some
suggestions.
First, he thought that Blue Book, given its past record,
could not be entrusted to pick the sightings the CU project
would study. He heard a rumor of such a plan and considered
it his obligation to warn against it.
Second, he argued that the copy of AFR 80-17 which Ratchford
sent him did nothing to insure that the university
investigative teams could go "to air base level and talk to
radar operators, pilots, tower personnel, etc." The AFR
200-2, predecessor to AFR 80-17, prohibited this and
McDonald argued the need to remove such an obstacle to
insure the highest quality investigatory work.
Finally, he discussed his campus colloquia and pointed out
that the objections which he could not overcome concerned
the impossibility of controlled laboratory experimentation
with UFO data and therefore he believed the CU project
should contain scientists accustomed to working outside a
controlled situation, such as Geophysicists. McDonald
asserted that scientists who normally read meters would balk
at personal testimonials. He admitted the data was messy
and not amenable to immediate plugging into a computer, but
he said, "not all scientific problems come neatly packaged."
He again volunteered his six months worth of experience to
the project and invited Ratchford to the October 19
Washington talk. He sent a carbon to Ed Condon.
[68]
Here I believe McDonald misread the situation and was obtuse to
think that having publicly presented the ETH
as "the least unlikely hypothesis" that the CU project or
the Air Force would want to touch him with a ten-foot pole.
At this point he was probably already branded as a fanatic,
but unfortunately for the non-believers, a fanatic with
credentials which opened some doors in high places and
enabled him to break down others.
Giving Klass rather short shrift, McDonald dashed off a
condescending note on October 15. In the first paragraph he
alleged the quantitative aspects of Klass' plasma hypothesis
were untenable. In the second paragraph he said he refused
to appear in a Washington radio debate with Klass because it
didn't seem like much of a scientific nature could be
accomplished. In closing he told Klass that he could be
contacted at NICAP while in D.C. and he hoped to see him at
the AMS meeting.
[69]
This study deals with the issues, strategies, tactics, and
personalities involved in McDonald's attempt to shift a
paradigm, but there was also much going on in the way of
investigation on the part of McDonald. It is an element of
the context, but there is really no way to adequately convey
the amount of time he put in, or all of the problems he
encountered. As a sample of what continually passed between
McDonald, NICAP and various individuals with whom McDonald
corresponded let me present verbatim the first four
paragraphs of a letter from McDonald to Hall.
Dear Dick:
I enclose miscellaneous items:
Copy of letter from S. E. Palmer, concerning a 1948 sighting.
Copy of letter from R. L. Gray concerning a June 1966 sighting. Copy of several transcriptions of NY Times stories on 1946 ghost rocket case. References are from your book, so you probably have them. Thanks for all the reference material on the Cherry Creek case. It leaves me just a bit in doubt of the protocols of the case. Fred Fair's comments indicate mixed emotions, don't they? The mental level of the boy (16 yrs. in 7th grade) argues against clever hoaxing, but also leaves one uncomfortable about his veracity. Maybe we can discuss it further in Washington. I was hoping it would be one of the stronger cases, but it appears to have some thin spots. I've been trying to dig out examples of good cases with animal reactions, as these have a bearing on the hallucination hypothesis. That was how I had become particularly concerned with Cherry Creek. Maybe we can run over the animal question next week. Do you think the Belle Glade, Fla., cattle-stampede case is reliable? I found about a dozen animal cases including Le Roy Kansas 1897 and the Portland pigeons of 7/47. Wm. Rhodes sent me his sole clipping of the July 9, 1947 Republic and I'm having it photo-copied. Very faint vapor trails do seem to show on the halftone, streaming at sharp angles off either tail of the "heel." He also gave me a copy of Vol. I, No. I of Fate Magazine, which he'd had in his files for years. Has Arnold's original account of the Mt. Rainier case. I shall be talking about that case next week, since the radiosonde data don't bear out Menzel et al.
In the way of tactics McDonald made it clear to Hall that
based on press accounts and comments from physicist
colleagues he went too far in his October 5 and 6 talks. He
tried to convey his position in terms of hypotheses, but in
retrospect felt his real convictions were obvious to the
audiences. Consequently, since the ETH could not stand by
ordinary scientific demands he decided that he would word
his Washington statements much more carefully.
He remarked that Colonel Steiner (AF) contacted him. Phil
Klass spoke to Steiner knowing that he also served as
program chairman for the Washington, D.C., chapter of the
AMS. As a result Steiner knew about McDonald's refusal to
appear in the radio debate, and asked if Klass
could have dinner with them in D.C. McDonald said "not for
his sake," that he felt Klass attacked the problem like
Menzel of Harvard. McDonald averred that Klass' talk with
Steiner, who was in a sensitive position with the Air Force,
made Steiner concerned that McDonald planned a press staging
event at the October 19 AMS meeting.
Even though McDonald intended to begin his Congressional
letter writing campaign ten days earlier he did not do so.
He said he wanted to discuss this tactic while in D.C.,
since it now seemed obvious the Air Force could assuage any
attempt to get Congressional Hearings by merely pointing to
the Colorado study as the answer. He proposed that probably
the best thing to do now was to insure that the Colorado
study was well conceived.
[70]
This intruding on, and attempting to intrude on, the
Colorado planning would occupy McDonald for almost another
year-and-one-half. He offered much assistance, consulted a
little, wrote numerous letters, developed an extensive
intelligence network inside the project itself and generally
made himself a thorn in Ed Condon's side.
The actual announcement of Condon's appointment to head the
project received coverage in all the major newspapers and
included quotes with respect to his position on the issues.
From the standpoint of the politics of science and
especially' with respect to his later quotes in various
speeches and interviews it is interesting to note a few of
his remarks at this juncture.
He stated that he did not exclude the possibility that some
of the UFOs contained outer-space visitors, but he said he
would need incontrovertible evidence to hold such a
position. He asserted that extremists of the debunking
school as well as the ETH school were just as
bad to him, but he did not consider all ETH proponents nuts.
He went on to say the 5 or 6 percent of the Air Force
reports which could not be explained over the past twenty
years would have to be taken seriously, but he added that
just because an object could not be identified it was not
necessarily an extraterrestrial visitor; yet on the other
hand, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Condon alluded to
the persecution of various early astronomers such as
Copernicus, Gallileo, and Kepler and argued that those who
took the UFO question seriously experienced similar
ridicule. He claimed that an important candidate up for
election told him privately that he saw a UFO, but he and
his wife agreed that to report it prior to the election
would open the candidate to derision.
This is perhaps the appropriate time to mention the ex post
facto reconstruction of this interview by some of those who
were eventually critical of Condon. They interpreted the
election anecdote as a reminder that Condon himself was in
the race for a board of regents seat. Some were even so
cynical as to suggest he took the CU UFO position only to
get publicity for his campaign.
In the same interview Condon criticized scientists who did
not take the opportunity to examine the Hillsdale, Michigan,
sightings earlier in the year. He went on to advocate the
scientific method as the best means of dealing with the
subject and intimated that the five or six hundred
unidentified cases he would have to work with would be ample
for investigative purposes.
[71]
All things considered he gave an impressively fair
interview. He neither came down on one side or the other
and responded in the fashion one would expect from the
objective researcher preparing to wade into a
project. From those portions of the article which McDonald
underlined it would seem that Condon's scientific style
pleased him.
Nevertheless he went ahead with his scheduled AMS talk on
the 19th. In it he discussed various UFO hypotheses, Blue
Book handling of the problem, CIA involvement, and the "why"
questions associated with UFOs. With regard to the
hypotheses explaining the phenomenon he laid out eight:
He argued categories 1-4 accounted for most sightings, that 5 and 6 probably explained a few more and that the adherents of 8 failed to shed scientific light on the problem and so he dismissed them. For him this left 7 (extraterrestrial probes) as "the least unsatisfactory hypothesis.' He believed 6 was the only important alternative.
After disposing of all but hypothesis 7 McDonald went on to criticize
Blue Book handling of the question, the Robertson Panel of 1953 and
various Army, Navy and Air Force regulations which made studying the
problem difficult. He concluded by saying he couldn't answer the
"why" questions such as:
It is clear from this talk that McDonald adopted essentially
the NICAP position. However, he was sensitive to his
station in the scientific community and to criticism by his
peers, so he also developed the circumlocution that
extraterrestrial probes were "the least unsatisfactory
hypothesis" to account for the observations. This enabled
him to argue that he was not an outright advocate of the
ETH, but as a scientist who spent six months looking at the
data this was his tentative conclusion.
The McDonald correspondence does not indicate much publicity
came from his talk, although the New York Times did pick it
up. It is not clear whether it was intentionally avoided by
McDonald or if the announcement of the CU study made his
remarks anticlimactic. There is one reaction, however,
which is worth noting.
Phil Klass seems to be the only one who responded directly
to McDonald in written form. He asked for a breakdown of
UFO cases from the categories of McDonald's AMS talk and
then asked what McDonald thought should be done if the
Colorado study found proof of extraterrestrial visitation:
He said he doubted McDonald's hypothesis, but that his
questions were nevertheless posed in a serious vein.
[73]
A few days later McDonald discussed the abstract of his talk
in a communication to Hall. He explained that he now
realized that too strong a statement on the ETH to
ill-informed scientists scared them, so he decidedly toned
down his remarks. He said he would run off 200 copies and
send a few out, in particular to Ev Clark, Elliott Carlson
(reporters), and Phil Klass.
To give some indication of where on the UFO spectrum
McDonald fell at this point it is interesting to note that
he spent an entire paragraph taking pot shots at the alleged
seduction of a Brazilian farmer (the Villas Boas case) by
extraterrestrials who purportedly conducted a cross
insemination experiment with him. To quote McDonald, "it
out-Barney's Hill" (a famous abduction and physical
examination case alleged to have occurred in 1962 in New
Hampshire). So McDonald, it would appear, remained
circumspect even with Hall when it came to occupant cases at
this time, which probably means he made light of them in
general. This is a typical phenomenon within UFO research.
The researcher starts off very conservative and slowly
develops an ever more radical position with respect to the
data.
McDonald also stated that Colonel DeGoes sent him a chilly
note which made it appear that McDonald's assistance was no
longer wanted. There was no comment on any of McDonald's
suggestions concerning Blue Book, but he returned the ball
lightning references. This brought McDonald back to Klass,
who according to McDonald, became the target of considerable
laughter from his UA colleagues when McDonald raised the
clear air ball lightning hypothesis. However, McDonald
entertained it as an interesting argument, just not the
answer.
[74]
He further commented to Hall that Klass' letter full of
questions was "not so annoying as his earlier stuff" and
wondered if it might suggest a change of heart. He knew
very little about Klass, this would seem obvious. However,
McDonald considered questions 1 and 2 loaded and intended to
approach them with that in mind.
He was again critical of the Villas Boas case then running
in the most prestigious UFO publication available, the
British Flying Saucer Review. He couldn't understand why
they presented such junk along with what he considered good
research. He marveled at how Jacques Vallee could recommend
it as the best UFO periodical. Time would eventually change
his scientific consciousness as he became more familiar with
the data, the history of the UFO phenomenon and those
individuals who had spent a good portion of their lives
pursuing the subject.
An inkling of this is received in the same letter which is
based on extensive discussions McDonald conducted the
previous week at NICAP with Hall and Keyhoe. As a result he
reread Keyhoe's book Flying Saucers Top Secret in a new
light and now realized that the conspiracy experiences about
which the Major wrote, and many others of which he spoke the
previous week, were much more credible than he (McDonald)
had thought.
As a result he could understand why NICAP took such a strong
conspiracy stand, but he still could not accept the
position. He felt that Blue Book would have been
administered by clever top-level people if a conspiracy
existed rather than the string of incompetents that held the
post. He closed his conspiracy discussion on a note which I
think expressed his real puzzlement, "Damnedest mess in the
world, isn't it?"
In conclusion he mentioned his attempts to schedule talks at
other universities and that he intended to pursue a number
of cases which Menzel explained as atmospheric inversions
and refractions by getting some part-time help to plot
radiosonde data.
[75]
This was the start of the long drawn
out historical search which all scientists new to the
subject invariably undertake. Who and what to believe? How
to check old reports? What has the Air Force done or not
done? If there is scientific pay dirt, can it be found? If
it can be found, at what price in terms of one's academic
status, emotions and regular work? It seems that just such
attributes and conditions surrounding borderland science
subjects make them too elusive and risky to examine at any
more than a cursory level for most scientists.
This point received emphasis the next day in a long letter
to Hall in which McDonald went into detail about a phone
conversation with Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto,
about a UFO observation Tombaugh made in August 1949.
Leaving aside the case material, the interesting aspect of
the conversation from the standpoint of this study is that
Tombaugh, according to McDonald, knew that Hynek was
changing his position and felt it would be good if a careful
examination of the UFO data were undertaken by reliable
people because he felt "that fanatics have scared most
scientists off." McDonald decided to send him a summary of
his AMS talk.
[76]
Sometime in early October Keyhoe and Hall received
invitations to provide briefings to the CU project staff.
In a note to McDonald, Hall indicated that he would stop off
in Chicago to see his brother Bob who
taught at the University of Illinois and receive some
pointers on briefing academics.
In the same communiqué Hall said he put off Klass who wanted
to look at the Socorro, New Mexico, file. He said he didn't
like the idea of withholding evidence, but he feared the
manner in which Klass would distort the facts given his
previous reportage.
[77]
It is interesting to note that, at least as far as I know,
neither Hall, nor anyone else of his persuasion, ever
applied the same type of argument to the Air Force approach
to non-release of information. NICAP, APRO and the other
groups had and have a vested interest in keeping the UFO
issue alive, leaving aside for the moment the actual
question of whether or not the data is anomalous, and no one
would deny that those groups engage in a bit of hyperbole on
occasion. Consequently, it would seem very rational policy
on the part of the Air Force to withhold information in the
hope that this would reduce the grist for the UFO groups and
pulp publishers. We must keep in mind, that at least at the
Blue Book level, the Air Force people in charge considered
UFOs a laughing matter, a public relations assignment.
[78]
And it should be remembered that it was at this level that
the UFO groups addressed most of their anti-Air Force
attacks.
By late October the UFO picture began to change for
McDonald. The Colorado project got under way, his speaking
engagements commenced on a national scale, his concern for
what he perceived as Hynek's about face on the issue
crystallized and Klass began to dog his tracks. It might be
well to remark on the intensity of McDonald's correspondence
at this point. The dates bear out the volume of material
sent and received. For he and Hall, to say nothing of the
others in the field, the issue
was white hot. It was finally to obtain scientific due
process, which they felt would surely vindicate many years
of heretofore unrecognized work.
In a missive to Hall, McDonald mentioned just receiving an
advance copy of Vallee's new book with a foreword by Hynek.
We can see McDonald's views are well formed on Hynek at this
point as he comments that "Hynek's introduction is a
masterpiece in trying to cover his rear."
McDonald showed marked concern about the CU project already.
He enclosed clippings from the Denver Post and Rocky
Mountain News which indicated such a scorn for the UFO study
on the part of the project's chief administrator, Bob Low
(author of the previously discussed Low Memo), that Condon
needed to write a letter to the editor to clarify the
position of the project.
Voice of America indicated an interest in doing an interview
with McDonald and he accepted. They also planned spots for
Donald Menzel of Harvard and Ralph Lapp of Quadri-Science
Incorporated, which reminded McDonald to send a copy of his
AMS talk to Lapp. Also Mike Levitas of the NYT Magazine
phoned to ask McDonald to do a 3000-word story on UFOs.
McDonald felt it an ideal place to make a few points on USAF
mishandling of the problem.
McDonald did more ancillary work to prop up his position and
while doing so convinced Hall that for future reference
NICAP should have on hand such reference volumes as:
MacGowan and Ordway, Intelligence in the Universe and
Jackson & Moore, Life in the Universe. This was for
purposes of showing how "so-called" authorities on life in
the universe dismissed the UFO problem. McDonald, of
course, assumed the problem was about to break and such
remarks would be appropriate. Also prior
to the "breakthrough" McDonald wanted as many negative
citations on UFOs as possible by important scientists.
These he could in turn refute in the cogent papers he
intended to write urging further consideration of the UFO
question as one of the most important scientific problems of
our time.
[79]
Meanwhile Klass began to spread his own gospel of the
plasmoid and check on McDonald's reputation. He wrote
Bernard Vonnegut, of Arthur D. Little, Inc., forwarding his
Aviation Week article on UFOs and asking Vonnegut about
McDonald's expertise in upper-air physics. Vonnegut said he
was not sure. His impression was that McDonald had not been
active in the area for some ten years, but that "most
scientists share my good opinion of Jim McDonald."
McDonald's commitment to the ETH surprised Vonnegut.
[80]
Not one to permit an offer of proselytizing to go by
McDonald contacted Mike Levitas of the NYT Magazine.
He outlined the main points he wanted to make in his article,
namely, how and who should study the UFO issue, an overview
of the problem, his own work in the area, the nature of the
reports, and the spectrum of UFO hypotheses. He said he
believed the real problem would be keeping the article down
to 3500 words, but if Levitas remained interested he would
write it up.
[81]
In a note to Hall, McDonald presented, at least from his
vantage point, a new tactic. He wanted to check on
scientifically trained UFO witnesses. Did Hall have a list?
The object of this tactic would be to counter the argument
that an untrained layman is easily fooled by natural
phenomena of one kind or another.
He also mentioned his disappointment at not being able to
address a group at the University of Washington at Seattle
on UFOs instead of
the scheduled topic of weather modification. He received a
polite letter from an officer of the group, Richard Reed,
who once wrote an article attributing all UFOs to lenticular
clouds, "putting the nix" on the change in subjects.
McDonald suggested to Hall, however, that he (McDonald)
might speak to a small group of the Seattle NICAP
Subcommittee if it could be arranged.
[82]
Hearsay about the CU project was already beginning to fly.
Hall wrote McDonald that a journalist friend who knew Condon
said Ed planned an instrumented look at the phenomenon using
fixed cameras, spectroscopes and magnetometers. Hall
remained skeptical, considering the project budget, but
pleased that Condon thought big.
In addition, Hall raised an issue always considered touchy
by those who classify themselves as serious UFO researchers.
ABC just produced a program on extraterrestrial life and, as
Hall perceived it, linked NICAP to the cultists and the
annual desert conventions of contactees and kooks at Giant
Rock, California.
[83]
This infuriated him for he realized it did the cause immense harm.
A few days later McDonald wrote a note to Ted Bloecher, a
veteran UFO watcher, who, as a traveling stage actor, was in
the process of combing microfilmed newspapers in each city
he visited (eventually 90 cities and 140 newspapers) to
ascertain the dimensions of the UFO wave of 1947 in the
United States.
[84]
McDonald again got off on Hynek. He said he could not
understand how Hynek could condemn the Air Force after
eighteen years of equivocating contact with the data
himself. He expressed distress with Hynek, but was
appreciative of the salutary effects his new position
might have. He said that Vallee urged him to join forces
with Hynek, but he found Hynek's past actions too
disquieting to permit it.
[85]
Now that McDonald did more talking on UFOs he also gave more
consideration to how the talks were couched. In a letter to
Bill Weitzel, the NICAP investigator who compiled the
128-page report on the Ravenna, Ohio, case, McDonald
commented on Weitzel's critique of his October 19 AMS talk.
He agreed that perhaps some of the "whats" and "whys" of the
UFO phenomenon might deserve speculation in future talks for
the benefit of some sincere doubters, but he cautioned that
Menzel types could take quick advantage of this tactic to
put the entire matter into the realm of science fiction and
"smear one's whole approach."
McDonald indicated his satisfaction with the reception he
received at the UA Psychology Department colloquium because
no one yelled hallucination and good questions were asked.
He said that he now planned to speak to the psychologists at
Arizona State University and at the University of
Washington.
[86]
The quantity of talks increased as witnessed by a letter
McDonald sent to Hall in which he discussed his tentative
schedule. He intended to speak with a group of astronomers
at UA in a few days and on November 9 to the astronomers at
Kitt Peak National Observatory in Tucson. Then a colloquium
before the UA Electrical Engineering Department, a talk to
the Tucson Amateur Astronomers Association, and on December
6 to the local chapter of the National Pilots Association.
Word of his talks spread rapidly so he also received
invitations from civic groups like the Lions Club, however,
he adopted a policy of turning down these latter requests to
focus on those groups which he felt might bring scientific
or observational weight to bear on the problem.
[87]
The tiff between McDonald and Klass acquired some positive
kindling, from McDonald's point of view, with a letter from
Martin Uman, whom Klass consulted on his (Klass') ball
lightning hypothesis. Uman said Klass' first article wasn't
bad, but in his latest one he misquoted Uman's remarks to
make a stronger case. Uman considered it distorted and, in
general, terrible. He concluded "Klass seems to really have
gone off the deep end."
[88]
Simultaneously NICAP prepared for the CU briefing. Hall
informed McDonald that he spoke with Mary Romig of the
geophysics and astronomy department of Rand Corporation and
he detected a "believer." She provided Hall with various
nonclassified Rand UFO reports, said she would digest and
forward some "Official Use Only" material and would report
on her trip to CU on November 21, a week prior to the NICAP
CU visit. Hall asked McDonald for any advice he might have
on tactics for the CU session, saying that he worried about
conveying the signal to noise ratio problem to Condon and
how the project might circumvent it.
[89]
(It is a commonly held view that 80 to 90 percent of UFO reports represent noise and not signal. The possibility bothered Hall that the project, because the staff did not consist of scientists with backgrounds in the UFO field, might inadvertently concentrate on the noise at the expense of the signal.)
McDonald was off on one of his favorite topics a few days
later in a note to John Fuller, author of Interrupted
Journey, namely, Hynek. After thanking Fuller for telling
Dial Press to forward a copy of the new book McDonald
commented on Hynek's shifting stand, but also ignored
history to admit that Hynek's letter in Science "was good
and will have its beneficial effects, without a doubt."
[90]
The next day Hall wrote McDonald a letter which sheds
considerable light on the extrascientific problem of
cover-up versus foul-up which often occupied the minds of
those convinced that UFO data deserved a fair hearing and
were puzzled as to why it failed to obtain one. Was it a
question of government conspiracy, or ineptitude on the part
of the Air Force?
Hall first mentioned the international implications. He
stated that an international foul-up seemed possible because
the prestige of the United States Air Force appeared so
great that it coerced any foreign interest underground.
Talks with foreign military attaches, according to Hall,
showed that they ignored official Air Force pronouncements
and pursued a quiet course of investigation.
However, in the mood for more speculation. Hall did so for
the domestic situation. I think this is worth alluding to
because al through McDonald's UFO campaign this cover-up
versus foul-up question played a role and this is the point
at which it began to occupy his thinking with increased
frequency.
Hall explained that he thought possibly a high-level
cover-up existed along with a low-level foul-up. The
former, in the late 1940s, he believed due to the concern
that UFOs were real and possibly Russian, and the latter to
any one or combination of things ranging from high-level
pressure for good public relations, to disinterest,
incompetence, or following the path of least resistance.
Hall generally avoided such speculation on what he
considered an unanswerable question, but the
previous weeks talk with McDonald and Keyhoe gave impetus to
his thinking in the area.
[91]
McDonald liked to keep Tom Malone informed of his progress.
He wrote that things were moving along well and that the
Psychology Department colloquium pleased him. So much so
that he managed to set up a joint one with Psychology and
Sociology at the University of Washington. He was
displeased, however, that he had heard nothing from Condon
even though he forwarded Condon and Will Kellogg, Associate
Director of the NCAR, a copy of the October 19 AMS paper and
Ratchford and Price assured him that Condon would be in
touch.
[92]
At this juncture I believe McDonald felt, as some of his
letters suggest, that he was the most qualified scientist in
the country to pursue the UFO problem and/or consult on it.
I think he wanted to head the Air Force study and now that
he couldn't, be believed he should make an effort to guide
it, to give it the advantage of his past work and try to
help them avoid the pitfalls he knew existed. Consequently,
it would appear that his expressions of concern for lack of
contact with Condon were indirect messages which he hoped
would filter back to Boulder.
Because NICAP played such an integral role in the Colorado
study and because the Colorado study took up such a
significant part of McDonald's energies we must take into
consideration, where relevant, some of the interactions
between NICAP and the project in Boulder which don't
directly involve McDonald. For instance, in early November
Major Keyhoe, the Director of NICAP, wrote Condon to ask for
assurances that the study proceeded completely independent
of outside control. Keyhoe found this necessary because he
wanted NICAP associated with it, as the largest (some 10,500
members) saucer-watcher group in the
country, and he saw the possibilities of this project being
the big breakthrough. On the other hand, he had battled
with the Air Force over UFOs for sixteen years (under NICAP
auspices since 1956) and now Air Force money funded the CU
work. So he feared a whitewash and wanted assurances
against that, but also showed anxiety over association with
an Air Force sponsored project, and how the relationship
would be construed by the faithful NICAP membership which
kept the organization afloat. Moreover, by this time he
received word about the Colorado press stories on Bob Low
and probably put the worst construction on them.
Condon replied that he considered Keyhoe's request proper,
that the study was totally free from outside influence and
would act in the national interest. He said two ground
rules were followed:
Condon argued the necessity to start from scratch, that Blue
Book efforts could not have been much, given their staff
size, and he felt no need to accept Blue Book, NICAP or APRO
interpretations at that point.
[93]
So Condon knew he needed help from Keyhoe and didn't write
to him as he might write to a kook, even if he considered
Keyhoe one. He probably realized the noise Keyhoe could
make on Capitol Hill and having once jousted with Senator
Joseph McCarthy's Senate Subcommittee in the early 1950s, I
don't think he wanted Keyhoe to turn his scientific
investigation into a circus. No doubt the Air Force
provided him with a dossier of Keyhoe's past activities and
consequently Condon knew exactly the kind of man with whom
he dealt.
The scope of the UFO problem increases when we look at a note
Ralph Rankow, a New York based NICAP investigator wrote to
McDonald. He said he spoke on UFOs at the United Nations
(probably to some unofficial group). An international team
approach interested McDonald so this undoubtedly excited him.
Rankow said, however, that in reply to a follow-up letter to U
Thant in which he (Rankow) offered to speak at greater length,
probably to the General Assembly or Security Council, Thant
indicated it would be necessary to get a "member state" to
sponsor a resolution to that effect. Rankow did not see much
chance of that happening, and agreed with McDonald that Colorado
remained the best bet for cracking the problem.
[94]
It was not until 1967 and 1968 that McDonald became more
interested in the international aspects of the UFO issue and its
solution. By then the prospects of a positive reading from the
Colorado Project appeared unlikely. As a consequence, McDonald
addressed the Outer Space Affairs Group at the UN, wrote on the
international implications of the UFO problem, investigated cases
in the Australia-New Zealand-Tasmania area, tried to contact
interested Soviet scientists and attempted to keep abreast of the
European UFO situation through an extended correspondence with
Aime Michel in France.
|
|
But that is getting ahead of the story. Toward the end of
1966 he was only beginning to lecture extensively on the
domestic front and to do so he began to research classic
cases.
Now that McDonald lectured more he also did an increased
amount of homework on classic cases. He wanted to be certain of
his facts before going far out on a limb which some astute skeptic
might attempt to saw off. In this regard, to illustrate one of
the problems of borderland science, it would probably prove useful
to look at a small bit of McDonald's thinking on the classic
Kenneth Arnold sighting over Mt. Rainier, Washington. This is the
sighting which set off the UFO wave of 1947 and brought the subject
into the news. McDonald planned to speak at the University of
Washington and cite the case because as a regional example it
would have more impact. A short quote might help to exemplify
the problem which he faced and brought up to Hall in a letter.
[95]
Last nite I spent an hour on the phone with
Kenneth Arnold -- who has not yet left for Australia, as I learned. Very
interesting. Pulled out a lot of fine points that he'd not
stressed in his accounts, but which have quite strong bearing on
the optical absurdity of the Menzel-Blue Book mirage explanation.
Since I'm going to discuss that one up in Seattle next week,
wanted to have his own account. The one thing that surprised me is
that Arnold speaks very favorably of Ray Palmer, and seemed to have
quite high regard for him on several counts. Am I the victim of
Menzelian heresies in thinking Palmer is a bit of a charlatan?
Or is this some measure of Arnold's credulity -- or does the dollar
sign perhaps enter here?"
These are the kinds of data-related problems that anyone
doing UFO research must grapple with. It is no wonder that so few
people will accept such a challenge either on a sub rosa basis or
openly. It also raises the question of what type of individual will
accept the challenge? Is it the ideal scientist who must follow his
data, of whatever kind, wherever it leads him? Is it the intellectual
or anti-establishment extremist who feels some need to play the role
of the iconoclast? Is it the person who is enthralled by the unusual
and bizarre? Alternatively, is it a combination of the above or an
ideal type which I have not included? As the McDonald maneuvering
unfolds perhaps we will gain at least a better idea of the type of
individual he was, even if it would be inappropriate to generalize
from him to all thoughtful UFO researchers.
Although McDonald intended to go to the University of Washington
at Seattle to speak on weather modification he persuaded the
Psychology Department and local AMS chapter to let him talk on
UFOs. As mentioned earlier he also wanted to address the local
NICAP Subcommittee if possible. In this regard he wrote June
Larson, head of the Seattle subcommittee, informing her of his
plans. Here we find another example of the politics involved in
pursuing the UFO matter. McDonald told Larson that she and her
husband could attend the AMS meeting with a few NICAP members,
but he said he didn't want an open notice made up which would
attract the cultist fringe and derail the discussion. But
more importantly, as he understood it, the Seattle AMS membership
was as ignorant about UFOs as most scientists and cautious about
getting involved. Therefore, he suspected they would not put out
a written notice on the talk, but would contact members by
telephone.
[96]
Returning to the subject of the Colorado project, it would appear
that as early as November 9 Hall met with Dr. David Saunders, a
psychometrician, who was to do the statistical analyses of UFO
data in Boulder. Hall wrote McDonald that his impressions were
favorable and discussed the various approaches the Colorado
group, according to Saunders, intended to consider. As a result.
Hall kept McDonald well informed of the progress at CU, which
probably made him more anxious to make his views known.
[97]
Ted Bloecher, who recently spoke with Hynek, provided more fuel
for McDonald's anti-Hynek sentiments a few days later. Bloecher
shared McDonald's view that Hynek was "undertaking his own public
relations program to justify his past position." As far as
Bloecher could see all Hynek could only talk about was his latest
efforts to get into print on the UFO question and rectify his
past sins of omission.
[98]
In a note to James Hughes, McDonald laid out some of his plans.
After the University of Washington talk he intended to visit the
Los Angeles NICAP Subcommittee and the Rand Corporation. He said
that from talking with Mary Romig of Rand he already knew that
Colonel DeGoes and the two Majors who composed the Blue Book
evaluation group only went out to Rand for advice on the public
relations aspects of the problem. Romig knew this because she
was the only one at Rand working on any part of the UFO problem.
This must have come as a shock to McDonald after the amount of
effort he put into his sincere critiques
of Blue Book and because of his previous expectations for DeGoes.
He already knew nothing came of his efforts and so wrote off the
ability of the Air Force to officially provide any
self-corrective mechanisms at Blue Book, but the fact that DeGoes
humored him, probably from the beginning, in all likelihood
raised his hackles.
On Colorado, McDonald explained he heard both good and bad bits
of information. What rankled him most, however, was that he
wrote Condon twice offering help and received assurances at the
October 19 AMS meeting from Price and Ratchford that Condon would
contact him shortly, yet a month had passed without any word. He
intended to write again in a week and did find it somewhat
comforting to know Hall and Keyhoe would travel out to Boulder to
provide briefings to the project staff.
[99]
The subject of Phil Klass remained on McDonald's mind. He asked
Hall if "you ever had more bugging from Klass?" He said it was
remiss of him not to reply to Klass, but he did not wish to argue
in Klass' litigious manner. However, on returning from
Washington he thought he should respond to Klass' claims in order
to avoid the rumors which Klass might start. Lastly, McDonald
wanted to know if Aviation Week published anything more
on UFOs?
[100]
After returning from his swing along the West Coast McDonald
dropped a line to Hall hitting the high points. For our purposes
the high point was that WNEW-TV of New York City contacted him to
participate in a one-and-one-half-hour panel discussion on UFOs.
Although he began with misgivings, after finding out that the
director, David Schoenbrun, was a man of some stature, and after
persuading him (Schoenbrun) to
tape a piece solely of his (McDonald's) own comments, McDonald
decided to proceed to New York.
The low points of the West Coast trip consisted of finding a lack
of dynamism among the NICAP subcommittees and a UFO briefing at
Rand which indicated to McDonald that Mary Romig knew little
about the subject and that the people there felt it would be
difficult to catch the ear of the Air Force on such a touchy
matter.
[101]
It seems that McDonald took the initiative and phoned Condon
and/or Low on November 20 and then flew into Denver to speak with
the staff. In a note to McDonald Low pronounced the meeting
productive and suggested that McDonald return to Boulder in the
future. Low especially wanted McDonald to make a list of cases:
Low said he would be down to Tucson to visit APRO and discuss
these matters with McDonald in the near future.
[102]
The trip to New York for the TV taping went well to hear McDonald
tell it. He wrote Idabel Epperson, chairman of the Los Angeles
NICAP Subcommittee, to fill her in on the details and to thank
her for some photographs she permitted him to use. He said the
studio crew seemed excited about the taping and consequently he
expected the two-hour panel discussion and his own half-hour
interview to be aired soon.
McDonald felt some of the panelists who came to scoff, and by
this he referred to Dr. Carl Sagan, astrophysicist-exobiologist
of Harvard. Ed Edelson, World Telegram Science Editor and Leon
Jaroff, Time Science Editor, left with puzzled looks on their
faces. It is difficult to say
whether the bewilderment was a function of the evidence McDonald
presented, or of the extreme position he took.
[103]
No doubt he
was correct, however, in his assessment that Sagan, Edelson and
Jaroff looked puzzled. It pleased him that David Schoenbrun
demonstrated moderate familiarity with the UFO phenomenon, lived
in France during the 1954 wave and knew military men who took the
subject seriously. As a result McDonald confronted a sympathetic
panel moderator and after his thirty-minute interview, Schoenbrun
made a plea for an independent UFO study.
[104]
The fact that the McDonald-Hynek rift existed did not go
unnoticed by others in the field. In a note to Judi Hatcher, a
UCLA graduate student in astronomy and NICAP investigator, Ted
Bloecher discussed Hynek at some length. He indicated Hynek
liked the idea that he (Bloecher) and Vallee might cooperate on a
comparative study of the Scandinavian UFO wave of 1946 and the
American wave of 1947. Hynek even volunteered to obtain 1947
material for Bloecher from the Blue Book files.
Bloecher said he thought it wise to forget about Hynek's past
sins of omission and begin to cooperate with him wherever
possible, especially in light of the fact that Hynek intended to
aid the CU study. According to Bloecher, "Hynek says his Saturday
Evening Post article is highly critical of Air Force procedures
in the past, and he is exceedingly sensitive about criticism of
his own position -- particularly by Jim McDonald" (Jim, please
note!).
[105]
Low was cordial in his letter to McDonald concerning McDonald's
one-day stopover in Boulder. Now in a letter to Hall McDonald
provided his impressions of the project which were it "left me
slightly uneasy." He felt ill-at-ease over the poor background
displayed by the project
staff, considering the several months they had to prepare. It
also appalled him that the project lacked physical science
talent. Dr. Franklin Roach impressed him, but he didn't think
Roach could carry the project by himself. He said he did not
voice his fears in Boulder, but left the message loud and clear
that the real problems would arise when the project began to
uncover the Air Force foul-up. McDonald was uncertain how to
interpret Condon's response to this, which was "We're not
interested in a renewal of this contract." Should he (McDonald)
be reassured that Condon meant the remark as a sign of toughness
or worried because it indicated a casual approach to the UFO
problem? The latter interpretation received reinforcement when he
spoke to the staff, primarily on meteorological optics, and came
away amazed at the elementary topics they considered informative.
He closed by saying, "all in all, let's cross our fingers and
watch carefully."
[106]
So McDonald was upset about the state of things in Boulder by
November 29, 1966. Although he kept those feelings between
himself and a few close associates, as time would pass, and he
would continue to look at the project with a jaundiced eye, an
adversary relationship would develop between himself and Condon.
This is a very interesting and I suspect unique phenomenon in
itself. Probably one that can only take place in a borderland
research area. When does a scientist meddle, and that is the
only way to describe McDonald's behavior, in another scientist's
research project? McDonald was certainly familiar with scientific
protocol. Yet he must have felt the problem sufficiently
significant to either be blind to his violation of protocol, or,
after having given the situation consideration, concluded that it
warranted atypical scientific practices.
It would be well to keep in mind that one of the reasons which
spurred him on, and is seldom present in other research, is that
the CU scientists were supposedly chosen for their lack of
interest in the UFO problem in order not to bias the study.
Whereas scientists normally study that which excites them and in
which they have some background. One therefore might argue that
since McDonald was already somewhat of an authority on UFOs, that
it was only natural that he, or anyone else who believed as he
did, could not help but be drawn into the web being spun at
Boulder when the general consensus of those close to the subject
was that UFO research would rise or fall on the outcome.
While attempting to push UFO research along McDonald began to
find that certain methods worked better than others. In a letter
to Hall he mentioned that Al Bland of the National Lecture Bureau
contacted him to tape a show with Frank Edwards on UFOs. Frank
Edwards was a radio news commentator, writer on the unusual.
Board member of NICAP and general raconteur. McDonald shied away
from doing the program with Edwards, because he wanted to avoid
the sensational tone which he thought could develop through
Edwards' approach. So in talking with Bland he stressed the
seriousness of the UFO problem and the importance of reaching
members of the scientific community who possessed the skills to
study it. He found Bland warmed to this tactic as did Ted Kavanau
and Mel Bailey prior to the WNEW-TV taping in New York. McDonald
made a note of this tactic as being the proper way to elicit
interest and obtain a hearing. He asked Hall if they might be
able to get together with Vallee and do the taping in Chicago.
In the same letter he expressed his disgust with Gerard Kuiper,
noted UA astronomer, who took it upon himself to begin speaking out
against the study of UFO data without, in McDonald's opinion, any
knowledge of the subject. He felt he aroused Kuiper's interest the
previous June, but now it seemed to no avail. He thought he should
address Kuiper's research group and inform them of the real dimensions
of the UFO problem because of Kuiper's influence and influential friends.
Moreover, since Kuiper traveled a great deal his coast-to-coast
pontifications could hurt the chances for future UFO studies.
[107]
McDonald acted on these sentiments the same day by getting off a
letter via campus mail to Kuiper. First he asked if the November
30 Citizen, a Tucson paper which covered a talk he gave on
UFOs, correctly quoted him. McDonald wanted to hear Kuiper's
argument if Kuiper felt that all UFO phenomena had conventional
explanations.
In order to impress Kuiper with his own perception of the import
of the issue McDonald told him about the various speaking
engagements and research efforts he undertook beginning in June.
He emphasized that he engaged in this activity to bring the UFO
problem out of scientific disrepute. He threw a barb at Kuiper,
perhaps unwisely, by saying no one he knew who looked at the
phenomenon closely did not consider it a bewildering scientific
problem.
He further said he was troubled by the question, "Have you really
dug into this problem any more than you had at the last time we
talked about it?" McDonald expressed concern over the impact
talks such as Kuiper's Bar Association speech could have,
especially in scientific circles. He followed this up by asking
if he could address Kuiper's laboratory staff on the
problem.
[108]
McDonald did not let up on Kuiper nor, in the process, on Hynek.
Five days after his above letter to Kuiper he sent off a further
memo with a copy of Hynek's December 6 Saturday Evening Post
article. This article, which took some good swings at the Air
Force investigation of UFOs, by implication, did much to
strengthen McDonald's position. Nevertheless, he could not resist
this opportunity to inform Kuiper of what he called Hynek's past
complicity with the Air Force in obfuscating a potentially
important scientific problem.
After this introduction McDonald again made an overture for an
opportunity to speak with Kuiper's Lunar Planetary Lab staff. He
argued that as absurd as the ETH seemed, all the evidence
appeared to point to it, and he felt it "undesirable and unwise"
not to share this information with his colleagues.
[109]
He was probably hinting here that once the UFO matter broke LPL could
be in for considerable funding if it already maintained a good grasp
of the problem.
The next day Hall wrote McDonald, who apparently decided to do
the National Speakers Bureau UFO taping, that they could not set
the schedules up in such a way as to coincide. Therefore, Hall
would be in Chicago on December 19 and there would be no chance
of getting together with Vallee because Vallee thought Hall
intentionally tried to avoid him on his (Hall's) last trip to
Chicago. At this point there seemed to be no way of establishing
a rapport which might lead to cooperation between the
Northwestern group and NICAP.
[110]
As was his habit, McDonald got off a letter to Tom Malone
apprising him of his past month's activities. He included a
paragraph on Hynek's fancy footwork à la the Saturday Evening
Post article and referred to the entire affair as laughable. He
spoke of his anxiety over the lack
of trained personnel at Boulder, his work on the NYT Magazine
article, all of his talks, and his ever-stronger conviction
regarding the ETH. He said he found the psychologists much more
interested than the astronomers, and said the former seemed quite
opposed to any "exotic psychological explanations or
hallucinatory phenomena."
[111]
From a letter McDonald sent to Jim Hughes it would appear that he
wanted ONR support for his UFO work. He told Hughes that after
all the time he put in, the conclusions he reached, and the many
years the ONR supported his research, that he felt some sort of
colloquium or closed briefing at the ONR seemed warranted.
Furthermore, he said he knew through Keyhoe, of a backlog of ONR
Navy UFO reports, which under the circumstances, it appeared
logical for him (McDonald) to begin to examine. He emphasized to
Hughes that the issue "is soon going to blow wide open." He
wanted Hughes' opinion on what strategy might be used to focus
the attention of the ONR on the problem and voiced the fear that
his treading on the toes of the Air Force might prejudice his
position in any ONR study of the phenomenon.
[112]
Hall told McDonald shortly thereafter of his talk with Tom
Ratchford from AFOSR, the go-between for the Air Force with the
Colorado project. Hall conveyed his apprehension that there were
too many psychologists on the project and not enough physical
scientists, a worry of McDonald's, to which Ratchford replied
that CU administered the project, but complete cooperation
existed with scientists at ESSA and NCAR. The Air Force did it
that way, he explained, to avoid the red-tape of contracting with
other government agencies and to facilitate communication since
NCAR, ESSA and CU were all located in Boulder. In terms of
outcomes Hall said Ratchford was frank. He stated that "if
Condon came up with a
positive reading and the NAS Review Committee found no fault with
Condon's methodology, a worldwide investigation of some type
would ensue." Ratchford stressed, according to Hall, that in its
review the NAS Committee would not concentrate on content, but on
methodology.
[113]
Although he found these comments interesting McDonald's
connections in the scientific community left him feeling
ambivalent. For instance, the Director of the Atmospheric
Research Institute at the UA, Richard Kassander, was also
chairman of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) Board of Directors, and he told McDonald that the Board
recommended that Walter Roberts, Director of NCAR, not get too
involved with Colorado because NCAR was already over-committed.
This meant that although Ratchford claimed NCAR would make a
significant contribution to the CU study, McDonald realized that
such an outcome was unlikely.
In his previous letter Hall spoke of a semi-official talk with
Dr. Robert Mood, Deputy Director for Research and Development,
Advance Systems and Technology, Douglas Aircraft, initiated by
Wood on the subject of writing a paper on the aerodynamic
characteristics of a disc-shaped object. Now McDonald seized
upon this to do a bit of ironic speculation on the cover-up
versus foul-up hypotheses. He suggested that perhaps a foul-up
existed at the Air Force level all along and now the stir which
he and others made had awakened the slumbering giant who, seeing
advantages at the international level in discovering the nature
of the UFO propulsion system was now feeling out Douglas Aircraft
-- hence the visit of Wood. Assuming this, McDonald went on, it
is possible the Air Force might put into action a real cover-up
on the UFO issue in order to obtain an advantage over the
Russians and others. McDonald remained
unconvinced, however, for he went on to say, "But is something
along such lines entirely out of the question? It makes me wish
we had some real leverage on the international aspects of the UFO
problem."
Lastly, he told Hall that the joint psychology-sociology talk
went well in Phoenix. T.H. Hoult, head of the Sociology
Department, received jeers for his negativism, while Bachrach,
head of the Psychology Department, essentially supported his
(McDonald's) position.
[114]
But McDonald did not get rid of Hoult that easily, for Hoult
wrote him a letter to explain his position in some detail. Or
perhaps it would be more correct to say that he attempted to
explain McDonald's position to McDonald. He said he felt
McDonald started with the most complicated of hypotheses -- the
ETH -- and did not adequately examine the more mundane. He
argued that McDonald needed to be a spokesman for the weak and
far out, UFOs just being the latest manifestation of this
behavior pattern. Moreover, he considered McDonald's defense of
this position verging on fanaticism, the kind found when
observing a religious phenomenon. Hoult predicted McDonald's
interest in, and the saucer craze itself, would soon wane and
McDonald would wonder why he ever became involved.
[115]
So, even from Hoult, a friend, McDonald received some stiff
criticism. Hoult did not look at the data, rather as he put it,
"My speculation is in line with historical events and with
well-established theory."
[116]
He used those tools which were
at his disposal in an attempt to discredit McDonald in the only
way that he knew. He used a particular world view based upon the
discounting of various bizarre phenomena in the history of
science, and to him, rightly or wrongly, it seemed that UFOs fit
into the same category. Actual investigation of
sighting data apparently seemed irrelevant to him. He found a
convenient niche in his world view for UFOs and there they would
stay.
On December 23 McDonald received a cordial response from Gerard
Kuiper indicating that he could address the Lunar Planetary
Laboratory staff. Kuiper admitted that as an astronomer, and
assuming Earthlike organisms, the probability of the ETH being
correct appeared very small and so he remained skeptical.
However, he said that, "I will revise my opinion without any
hesitation if I am convinced that there is novel information that
can really be trusted."
[117]
This ends McDonald's first year of active participation in the
UFO controversy. It should be clear from the above that he
attempted to gain "access" (to use Truman's term
[118] )
to decision-makers in the scientific, governmental and military
communities in order to shift a paradigm. His behaviors were
blatantly political and his personal politics of science lends
itself to discussion in traditional political terms.
He needed to gain access to obtain legitimacy for the study of
the UFO phenomenon. He saw successful access to the scientific
elites as a means of convincing government to fund UFO research.
Successful access to governmental elites, on the other hand,
could produce the same outcome, but through forcing research on
the scientific community in the name of the national interest.
In the case of the military elites, if they could be convinced of
the importance of the UFO problem, assuming they didn't already
know, then McDonald believed they would focus their scientific
talent on solving the puzzle to stay ahead of the Russians.
We can refer to the above as components of McDonald's personal
political strategy. But if his strategy was to gain access to
scientific,
governmental and military decision-makers to obtain legitimacy
for UFO studies, what were his political tactics? That is, how
did he attempt to implement his strategy? In retrospect it would
appear that his tactics can be most readily discussed in terms of
those used directly to influence members of the decision-making
communities mentioned above and those used indirectly to
accomplish the same ends. In the case of the former his
overtures were essentially straightforward, while the latter
consisted of his efforts to create a favorable climate of opinion
for UFO studies by obtaining publicity for the phenomenon and by
attempts to buttress and/or maintain his own credibility. How
did he go about this in each of the above instances?
With respect to the scientific community he began his campaign in
a subdued manner in March of 1966 with overtures to Tom Malone
for a one-man summer study through the Committee on the
Atmospheric Sciences of the NAS. When he became aware that the
Air Force intended to fund a university UFO study to be reviewed
by the NAS, he retracted his plan.
At the University of Arizona McDonald applied for an NASA
Institutional Grant of $1300 through the university's Space
Sciences Committee. He realized that funding was a political
question, and subsequently contacted Gerard Kuiper and Aden
Meinel, who sat on the committee, to convince them of the
significance of the UFO problem.
A month later he tried to impress the committee with the
significance of his research and in particular his conclusion,
after visiting Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, that the ETH was
correct. He asked Gerard Kuiper if he might present his findings
at a committee meeting. It is not clear if he was permitted to do
so, but it is apparent that
he felt such a tactic would have a salutary affect. Three weeks
later McDonald received the $1300 NASA grant through the
committee.
It was as a result of the WPAFB trips that McDonald became
irritated with Hynek for not speaking out in his role as the Air
Force consultant, or that failing, dramatically calling a press
conference in the early 1950s to resign. We will never know why
McDonald adopted the tactic of attacking Hynek for his past
timidity. But it would appear that the behavior is best
explained as an effort to impugn Hynek's Air Force consulting
work and thereby call into question eighteen years of Air Force
UFO pronouncements. For while the Air Force used many
consultants over the years, only Hynek had eighteen years of
experience and filled the role of the watchdog of Blue Book for
the scientific community. Another possible explanation for
McDonald's behavior is jealousy. He considered Hynek remiss in
his duty to the scientific community, but at the time the subject
was about to blow wide open Hynek managed a letter to Science,
Discovery and Saturday Evening Post articles and a
preface to Vallee's book. McDonald believed Hynek intended these
actions to make him appear to be something he was not.
However, attacking Hynek proved a poor tactic for McDonald to
employ because it forced a wedge between himself and Hynek at a
time when they were the foremost academics in the field. Their
bickering rather than cooperation, and the resultant squabbling
among their respective followers wasted considerable time and
energy which could have been more profitably spent in a joint
effort to legitimate UFO studies.
In August McDonald began speaking out on campus (see Appendix A
for a list of his speaking engagements from 1966-69). From the
tone of his correspondence it is clear that he wanted to increase
his academic
constituency through this tactic. There is no doubt that he
intended to get as much mileage as he could out of the fact that
he, as "a respected atmospheric physicist" had given UFOs
a long hard look and had found a significant scientific problem. He had
credentials, was aware of their importance, and used them
wherever he considered it efficacious.
After many months of interacting with Ratchford and Price at
AFOSR, seemingly to no avail, McDonald developed a deep concern
over the events taking place on the Colorado Project. When he
didn't receive answers to his letters to Condon, he finally
telephoned Boulder, essentially forcing Condon to extend him an
invitation to brief the project staff.
Neutralization of individuals who dismissed UFO data as
explainable in other than extraterrestrial terms also occupied
some of McDonald's time. After hearing of Klass' plasma
explanation he wrote him a condescending response and enclosed a
letter to the editor for Aviation Week and Space Technology
Magazine which he no doubt intended to rectify, what he
considered, the misimpressions created by Klass' article.
Donald Menzel of Harvard had written two books on UFOs, both of
which treated the subject as nonsense. He was, and is,
considered the foremost academic proponent of that position.
Cognizant of this, and convinced that Menzel's explanations were
qualitatively seductive but quantitatively untenable, McDonald
decided to hire a part-time worker to plot radiosonde data which
he believed would invalidate many atmospheric refraction and
inversion explanations which Menzel had proffered for past cases.
When McDonald heard of Gerard Kuiper's negative remarks on UFOs
at a local American Bar Association meeting, he quickly jotted
him a note
to determine if the newspaper quotes were correct and if Kuiper
knew more about the phenomenon than the last time they had
spoken. He pursued the matter until he obtained an invitation
from Kuiper to speak on UFOs to the Lunar Planetary Laboratory
staff.
However, McDonald did not direct all of his tactics toward
resolving the UFO issue. Proceeding under the assumption that it
"would break wide open," he contemplated some vindictive
actions. Scholarly texts on life in the universe irritated him because of
the manner in which they slighted the UFO phenomenon. Therefore,
he obtained appropriate quotes from these volumes for inclusion
in the papers he intended to pen after the "big breakthrough."
In these papers he would make the authors of the above-mentioned
scholarly texts eat their own words.
He began his government-oriented tactics in March 1966 with a
letter to Representative Morris Udall. He wanted to work through
Gerry Ford, who had called for hearings on UFOs, but did not know
if he could trust Ford to be circumspect. Therefore, he asked
Udall to forward his proposal only if Udall believed Ford could
be depended upon not to leak the request for a quiet three-man
investigation.
Because of his conviction that under ideal circumstances UFOs
were a scientific and not a military matter McDonald wanted the
problem transferred from the Air Force to NASA. He spoke with
Gerard Kuiper, who he felt was influential at NASA, and asked if
he should wait for Kuiper to intercede for him or go ahead with
his NASA plans without Kuiper's aid.
When McDonald finally had the opportunity to speak at NASA he
encountered Joe Fletcher, a representative of the Rand
Corporation. Fletcher "sat in" while McDonald emphasized
the budgetary significance of the UFO question to NASA personnel.
The talk, McDonald felt, planted the seeds which would bear fruit
at some future date. The NASA people knew of his talks to the
Air Force and through the Rand representative the Air Force would
learn of the colloquium at NASA. It pleased McDonald that this
might cause some interagency rivalry.
When Kuiper proved to be an adversary instead of an ally McDonald
attempted to enlist the support of Al Eggars, an aerodynamacist
at NASA. Eggars also proved of negligible help, but this did not
lessen McDonald's belief that UFOs belonged under the aegis of
NASA. When he decided to "come out" in October he told
Hall that he intended to begin a letter-writing campaign to assorted
Congressmen and wanted Hall to put the full weight of the NICAP
membership behind it. The thrust of the endeavor would be to
urge Congressional Hearings to remove UFOs from the domain of Air
Force responsibility and place them under the wing of NASA.
In 1966, however, McDonald spent most of his energy on the
military. After he had become aware of the Air Force plans for a
university study, but before it was clear what the study would
consist of, he asked Brian O'Brien, who sat on the Air Force
Scientific Advisory Board, to raise the idea of a small summer
study at the Air Force Systems Command.
As early as April McDonald informed Hughes at the ONR of his UFO
activities and in June the ONR paid for his first trip to WPAFB.
It was on that trip that McDonald concluded that the ETH was
correct and afterward asked Hughes for, but did not receive,
direct funding for his UFO work.
McDonald made three trips to WPAFB and uncovered what he
considered a wealth of material and unsurpassed Air Force
investigatory incompetence. He tried to bully Major Quintanilla
into changing case classifications and gave advice to Dr.
Cacciopo, who was ostensibly responsible for Blue Book, on
reorganizing the project. At that time he still believed that
the Air Force wanted to solve the UFO mystery and not salve the
public psyche. Proceeding with that mistaken assumption he
attempted to aid Colonel DeGoes' three-man Blue Book review team
through extensive discussions, both verbal and written, of the
problems on the project.
Concomitantly he was concerned about the possibility of the Air
Force summer study and the ensuing full-scale university team
examination of the phenomenon. With respect to the former, he
found that O'Brien, just as Kuiper, proved an adversary and not
an ally. He set out to neutralize O'Brien by educating him about
UFOs in the hope that O'Brien, through the AFSAB, would not
scuttle his chances for the summer study. In the case of the
university team approach, he offered his services to Ratchford
and Price at the AFOSR to sell the UFO project concept to any
prospects for the principal investigator position and proffered
his six months of experience in any capacity in which he could
serve. This, of course, was long after it was patent that he
would not be asked to head the investigation himself.
By September, however, McDonald's disillusionment with the Air
Force made him decide to "go public" with his ETH findings
even though the university team approach was in the offing. It is
also possible that Hynek gave him impetus in this direction by
"coming out" in Science in August. McDonald's
pre-"coming-out" letters to Colonel DeGoes,
Ratchford and Cacciopo suggest that he
thought that the threat of going public, especially with a
position highly critical of the past research of the Air Force,
would coerce the Air Force into reevaluating Blue Book. But such
was not the case.
He went through with his "coming out" in which his
remarks were highly critical of the Air Force and received limited press
coverage. This began a two-pronged offensive which lasted until
publication of the Condon Report in January 1969. On the one
hand he was critical of the Air Force handling of the UFO
question, but on the other he tried to initially help Ratchford
and Price organize the university study and as it proceeded he
attempted to apprise them of its progress, continued to offer his
services, and generally worked to keep the project moving in what
he considered "the right" direction even though his
meddling proved disruptive.
Meanwhile, he became more knowledgeable about UFOs and felt that
his research on what he considered the most important scientific
problem of the twentieth century deserved funding. Having had
ONR contracts for eight years he wanted ONR to fund his UFO work
and with that in mind began setting the stage in December through
Hughes for an ONR colloquium on his UFO findings.
The tactic of publicity-seeking, with the hope of swaying public
opinion, proved a delicate matter for McDonald. He knew that it
could work, as witnessed by the House Armed Services Committee
Hearings of April 1966. Moreover, pressuring Congress, the Air
Force and the scientific community into taking action appealed to
him, but he realized that while he needed publicity, to be
branded a publicity-seeker would lose him the support of those
people who could help him the most. Consequently, he proceeded
with caution.
As early as August, however, he approached Look and
U.S. News and World Report about writing UFO articles.
Apparently U.S. News lacked interest, while Look was interested,
but not, they said, until the furor subsided over several
Saturday Review UFO articles. Eventually McDonald did prepare a
piece for the NYT Magazine which was never used and participated
in a two-hour UFO special for WNEW-TV in New York City.
In September the planning began for his "coming out."
Hall, who did most of the organizing anticipated ample press coverage.
McDonald used two talks in Tucson as trial balloons prior to his
October 19 American Meteorological Society talk in Washington,
D.C. He learned in Tucson to be leery of the press for its
blatant misquoting. He also found that he had to modify his
presentation of hypotheses because his audiences sensed his true
convictions regarding the ETH. He did not want to frighten away
potential converts, particularly scientists, and so he adopted
the circumlocution that the ETH was "the least unsatisfactory
hypothesis" to explain UFO data.
Although he had initially been interested in radio and TV
interviews, a press conference, and private talks with individual
reporters, his Tucson experience sobered him. The events
surrounding
the actual Washington coming out are not clear, but it appears
that the Air Force stole some of his thunder by announcing its
university project and the appointment of Ed Condon as its head
just a few days before McDonald spoke. This, no doubt, decreased
the impact of his remarks and made him appear an unofficial
late-comer to the UFO problem.
McDonald was always aware of the fact that his campaign was one
of persuasion; that he did not have the kind of intersubjectively
verifiable evidence that invariable would win the day if only
given the opportunity. Therefore, he tried in various ways to
guard his credibility in what seemed an incredible area of
research.
For instance, in the Spring of 1966 it took months before he had
enough confidence in Hall and NICAP to expose his true interest
in UFOs. Moreover, during this period, although he corresponded
with Hall, he did not inform him of his NAS overtures.
The Tucson press coverage, as mentioned above, frightened him.
He didn't mind going out on a limb, but he desired it to be one
of his own making. Consequently, he told Hall that he only
wanted good press people covering his Washington coming out so
that his position would not be misrepresented. To try to ensure
this he adopted the "least unsatisfactory hypothesis"
phrase.
Even though he initially wrote Klass in a condescending tone,
McDonald had second thoughts when he realized the influence Klass
could have in Washington., D.C., through his editorial position
with Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. Although he
did not wish to reply to Klass' letters he decided that it was
incumbent upon him to do so in order to nip any rumors in the bud
which he suspected might circulate regarding his inability to
respond to Klass' arguments.
Lastly, when the National Lecture Bureau contacted McDonald to
tape a UFO segment with Frank Edwards, a UFO writer and general
raconteur, he declined. He did not want to take the chance of
Edwards side-tracking the discussion away from the scientific
merits of the UFO problem and concomitantly associating him
(McDonald) with that style of argumentation. One thing he felt he
had learned about such situations was to always keep the
discussion directed toward the scientific aspects of the problem
and the best ways to reach scientists. He believed this enhanced
one's credibility and left a good impression with respect to the
seriousness of the subject.
Such were the strategy and tactics employed in McDonald's
personal politics of science in 1966. In his pursuit of
legitimacy and a subsequent paradigm shift he concentrated his
energies on what Almond and Coleman have called interest
articulation.
[119]
He tried to make demands on elite
decision-makers in the governmental, scientific and military
arenas to obtain the scarce resources to carry on the research he
believed necessary to resolve the UFO problem. When the elites
failed to respond as he had hoped he took his case to the public,
probably thinking that public opinion might influence
decision-makers in a manner which he could not. In going about
this McDonald employed the following tactics.
Academia
Government
MiIitary
Public
This chapter examined McDonald's behavior in detail and, I
believe, made the case for the proposition that the scientific
process, at least in this instance, was a political process.
Therefore, there is no need to continue the presentation in such
a micro-analytic fashion. In the approximately four years which
followed the strategy remained essentially the same while
McDonald continually refined the tactics as he became more
accustomed to the difficulties of engaging in borderland science
activity. The remaining chapters focus on four important events
in McDonald's campaign.
The first concerns his response to, and interactions with, Ed
Condon and the staff of what became known as the Condon Project.
This provides an opportunity to observe McDonald's tactics at a
time when it appeared that the future of UFO research hung in the
balance.
The second event involves McDonald's successful attempt, to obtain UFO
hearings within the House Committee on Science and Astronautics in the
summer of 1968. As far as he could tell things were not going well at
Boulder and so it seemed wise to take the case for UFOs to Congress where
he hoped interest could be stimulated in a thorough investigation of
the phenomenon. The battle with Phil Klass over McDonald's use of ONR
atmospheric physics research funds for UFO studies makes up the third
event. It furnishes the occasion to examine the tactics which may be
resorted to if straightforward funding of a research area is not
forthcoming for political reasons. It also suggests something about the
extremists one must be prepared to confront if one decides to do
borderland research and become known as an extremist oneself. Lastly,
preparations for the scientific establishment in convention is the
fourth event. In 1969 the American Association for the Advancement of
Science held a UFO Symposium at its annual meeting in Boston.
Although McDonald did not play a role in the organization of this
event it is what he nevertheless wanted; a hearing before the
scientific community. Following the planning of this event will enable
us to observe the trials and tribulations of the prime movers, view,
for the first time, the tactics of those elder statesmen of science
who opposed UFO studies, and determine what purpose the AAAS Symposium
organizers had in presenting the program.
|