|
Background History of Events Summary and Conclusions Summary of Tactics Footnotes |
| BACK to Contents |
BACKGROUND
For many years those UFO researchers who considered the matter a
significant scientific problem had long desired a hearing before
the scientific community. In 1969 they viewed the AAAS forum as
an opportunity to right the wrongs done by the publication of
the Condon Report. This chapter is intended to illustrate the
manner in which established science dealt with the UFO
phenomenon through the 1969 AAAS UFO Symposium. We will see
that it involved much more than getting the program organized
and asking the speakers to take part. Moreover, we will find
that there were three radically different perspectives on the
symposium and its function, represented by those who organized
it, others who opposed it, and a third group who welcomed the
opportunity to legitimate the study of the UFO phenomenon.
The reason or reasons for the symposium are not readily
identifiable. Various interest articulation efforts existed for
years. Most notably APRO and NICAP and probably more
importantly, from the perspective of the scientific community,
the prodding begun by McDonald in April, 1966. However, the
Condon Study in all likelihood proved a larger factor in
creating a climate of opinion among scientists and the academic
community in general which would not only tolerate, but by and
large encourage, an examination of this bizarre phenomenon.
With this in mind, then, we can begin taking a look at the
preparations for the symposium which was initially intended to
take place at the 1968 AAAS Meeting in Dallas, Texas. As the
story unfolds the arguments of the symposium proponents and
opponents should become
clear. This will provide an occasion to observe the manner in
which, at least in the case of the UFO problem, established
science came to grips with a borderland science subject. In
particular, it will enable us to examine the personal
political strategies and tactics of those individuals who came
to verbal blows over the efficacy of the UFO symposium
concept.
The issue began to surface in April, 1968 when Dr. Thornton
Page, then of Wesleyan University's Department of Astronomy,
and co-organizer of the symposium with Dr. Carl Sagan of
Harvard, wrote Dr. Dael Wolfle of the AAAS to explain his
reasons for wanting the AAAS to hold a UFO symposium at the
1968 meeting. He argued that:
Apparently Page already did some spade work on the project because he
said Menzel of Harvard, author of two UFO books, and Condon refused to
appear because of the kook aspect of the subject. Nevertheless, he
felt that Hynek from Northwestern's Astronomy Department, Sagan from
Harvard's Astronomy Department, Markowitz of Marquette's Physics
Department, McDonald from the University of Arizona's Institute of
Atmospheric Physics, Drake of CornelI's Center of Radiophysics and
Space Research, McCrosky of NCAR, Klass from
Aviation Week and Space Technology and someone from the
Air Defense Command would make for an interesting
discussion.
[1]
A few weeks later Page wrote Hugh Odishaw at the AAAS again to
explain the plans for the symposium and to request that the
AAAS, which would review the Condon Report, release it prior
to the AAAS meeting and provide the symposium participants
with copies two weeks in advance. (Since it was the NAS and
not the AAAS that would review the Condon Report the above
statement indicates Page's lack of familiarity with the UFO
situation.) At this point Page provided his first recognition
of the extreme views held by some on the UFO issue. He
said:
[2]
Although our proposed list of speakers includes competent
scientists acquainted with the UFO problem, there are several
others. One extreme case is Donald Menzel (author of two
books on flying saucers) who opposes any two-sided discussion.
The other extreme is Keyhoe, Ruppelt and other Ufologists
supercritical of the Air Force. We plan proper scientific
discussion without regressing to either extreme.
This is the last communication concerned with the planning of
the symposium in 1968. The issue remained dormant for the
summer except for those involved in trying to abort the event.
The principal parties to that attempt were Menzel, Markowitz
and Klass. In the summer of 1968 they tried to compose a
joint letter to Science which went through six or seven
drafts. All three opposed the symposium, but they could not
agree on the wording of their statement. Finally, they
decided to write individual letters, but then never sent
them.
[3]
The same men would oppose Page and Sagan in 1969.
Because of the work of the above trio, and possibly behind the
scenes activities on the part of others, Sagan wrote McDonald
that the
symposium would be postponed until 1969. Sagan gave two
reasons. He said that the CU Report would not be out in time
for the symposium participants to discuss it in 1968 and that
individuals in some quarters became quite emotional about the
holding of the symposium so a postponement would both provide
time for the report to come out and for the air to clear.
[4]
|
|
Initial Planning Condon's Opposition Additional Obstacles Forging Ahead Symposium and Aftermath |
| BACK to Top |
|
By early 1969, however, the obstructors knew that the
symposium plans were again in the offing. Menzel, apparently
asked by Page to give his views on the symposium arrangements,
asserted that UFOs had nothing to do with outer space, and
anyone who invoked the ETH to explain them was a crackpot or
crank who should not be permitted on the panel. He said he
would not appear with any of them because they did not publish
scientific analyses of the problem; this included McDonald who
Menzel considered unscientific. If McDonald or any other "of
his ilk" participated Menzel made it clear that he would not
and, in fact, would oppose the symposium.
With respect to who should speak and on what, Menzel also held
views. He thought Hynek unpredictable but alright to relate
his Air Force experiences, while Major Hector Quintanilla
could provide the Air Force position. Menzel himself would
explain what prompted UFO observations, Brian O'Brien could
speak to the physiological optics of sightings. Marcel
Minnaert for the meteorological optics, William Markowitz on
reported landings, Philip Klass on plasma phenomena and a
psychologist for the psychological aspects of sighting
reports.
Menzel believed that the AAAS should begin where the NAS
Review of the Condon Report left off -- namely, with a
responsible position. He explained to Page that if the
symposium included the crackpots they would dominate the
proceeding and contribute ignorance rather than knowledge.
Therefore, he urged their exclusion and suggested that if Page
feared their criticism for holding a one-sided symposium that
he cancel the program. He said that he talked to Condon and
that even he would participate if Page did not invite the
crackpots.
Menzel claimed in his closing remarks that future science
would not be synonymous with magic and that some things in
physics, which he apparently considered mutually exclusive of
the UFO phenomenon, such as special relativity, some form of
general relativity, the laws of conservation of mass and
energy, the second law of thermodynamics and the impossibility
of perpetual motion would be part of physics for a 1,000 or
even 10,000 years. He said:
[5]
I am fully aware that several of the believers, including some
of those who contributed to the Roush Hearings, accused me of
being old fashioned and reactionary. But I think it is
significant that none of these individuals has made any
substantial contribution to science in his own right.
Page enclosed a copy of Menzel's letter when he wrote Sagan,
Philip Morrison and Walter Orr Roberts. The former two (Page
and Sagan) were the major planners of the symposium and the
latter two (Morrison and Roberts) minor planners. Morrison
was a member of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics, while Roberts was at NCAR in Boulder
and President of the AAAS. This letter indicates Page already
did some plotting to insure an interesting panel. He said
Condon might take part and Markowitz showed signs of
softening. He proposed three panels; The UFO
Phenomenon; The Possibility of ETI; and
Science, The Public and UFOs. "Then
we can tell Menzel and Condon that McDonald is not in the
symposium on the UFO phenomenon. A bit devilish, but it might
work."
[6]
Page considered Condon's participation important
because the Condon Report came out in January of 1969 and
members of the academic community considered it the only
scientific contribution to the UFO debate. But the Report did
have detractors, principally McDonald and Hynek, and the
symposium would be an appropriate place to rehash some of the
issues. Given the magnitude of the CU effort and the
atmosphere in 1969 viz UFOs, Condon's absence would be a
genuine loss to the symposium organizers.
Three months passed before Page dropped Sagan a postcard
concerning the symposium. In it he said he spoke to Walter
Berl at the AAAS who indicated Condon might regain his sense
of humor in time to take part in the Boston proceedings.
[7]
Sagan contributed more on Condon's participation a week later.
He stated they talked at a conference on "Science and the
Future" and Condon remained on the fence about his
participation. Sagan argued that avoiding a confrontation
between McDonald and Condon seemed the logical approach.
This, he thought, could best be accomplished by having them
appear on separate days and assigning Condon the task of
discussing the role of UFO literature in science
education.
[8]
The planning committee was hardly packed with "believers"
as some critics would eventually argue. This can be seen in the
remarks of Morrison to Page after apparently talking to Hynek,
George Price-Williams, a psychologist at Rice, Page and
McDonald.
In referring to the symposium he said, "the scheme seems to be
that the strange nature of UFOs is to be assumed unless
disproven." He showed displeasure with that approach and
averred that neither Hynek nor McDonald showed him any truly
anomalous cases. Moreover, after reading the Condon Report he
believed that enough work had been done in the area. He said
he would speak at the symposium not on UFOs, but on the nature
of physical evidence and would do it in the spirit of public
education.
[9]
Page responded that if Sagan and Roberts
agreed then Morrison would speak last on the nature of
physical evidence. He assured Morrison that by the time he
reached the podium the ETH arguments would be discredited.
[10]
Roberts also showed concern about linking ETH discussions with
the UFO presentations. He told Page that such a juxtaposition
could convey the wrong idea. Turning to another subject he
considered it unfair to have Low confront McDonald on
atmospheric explanations of UFO observations and prevailed on
the group to invite Franklin Roach, a noted astronomer with a
specialty in air glow, who analyzed the astronaut sightings in
the Condon Report. Roberts also made the first mention of the
motivation for holding the symposium when he said:
[11]
As you know, I am in tune with Carl Sagan's notion of using
things like the UFOs to gain the attention of the public, and
then using these as ways of providing knowledge about the
specific subject matter, as well as science generally.
In August the speakers and topics for the symposium in
December remained tentative. Page informed Sagan that
Morrison approved of Condon, but not Menzel, and continued to
oppose any discussion of the ETH although he felt a critique
of the news media's coverage of UFOs seemed in order. Page
thought the latter as tangential as the former,
but told Morrison to draft a letter to Walter Sullivan, the
Science Editor of the New York Times if he wanted someone
to cover the news media.
[12]
Sagan spoke to Morrison about the
ETH and found Morrison willing to permit him to discuss the
ETH provided that he gave equal time to other "equally poorly
based" hypotheses; to that Sagan agreed.
[13]
At that point the plans for the coming symposium became public
knowledge through an announcement in the August 15
Science.
This spurred a new onslaught apparently spearheaded by Condon.
He wrote Roberts that the AAAS Board should carefully consider
its action which he deemed inappropriate. Condon said he
wrote to squash the rumor that he would participate. Contrary
to that rumor no one asked him and he would not take part if
asked. Moreover, he would not attend any portion of the
annual AAAS function if Sagan and Page held the UFO Symposium.
In a further attempt to sway the Board he sent each member a
copy of the Condon Report. He told them that its distribution
was poor and consequently they probably did not obtain a copy.
He also enclosed a Rocky Mountain News article on some of the
people he thought would take part in the symposium and
ridiculed their intellectual caliber, while lamenting the fact
that they had Ph.D.s, were probably AAAS members and could not
be refused. He pointed out that none of the "great"
scientists who showed enthusiasm for UFOs developed a research
proposal in the area and suggested that Roberts read Error and
Eccentricity in Human Belief by Joseph Jastrow to understand
"kooky beliefs" on a par with UFOs.
Condon did not oppose a fair discussion of controversial ideas
but he considered it impossible.
"The UFO buffs are a slippery lot, and do a great deal
by insinuendo, so it is usually useless to try and find out what
they are really contending. Some never had any critical faculty,
some are suffering severely from progressive degeneration of
whatever critical faculty they ever had."
He believed that by holding the symposium "the ignorant will
be misled. The intelligent will think the AAAS is crazy."
He concluded by suggesting that the AAAS was pro-UFO.
Science displeased him by sending a scandal monger (Boffey) out to
Boulder in 1968 to write about the project. Then Science
did not review the finished report, and finally a two day
symposium. He asked, "why this foolish behavior? Have UFO
kooks infiltrated 1515 Massachusetts Avenue?"
[14]
Condon's letter preceded one from Hudson Hoagland, a
Psychologist/Physiologist from Harvard, who agreed with Condon
that no self-respecting scientist should dignify the meeting
with an appearance. He likened the UFO issue to the hysteria
surrounding mediums after World War I. He had exposed Margery
the medium in a 1925 Atlantic Monthly article and then
scientists who held a belief in her attacked him.
[15]
A note from C. D. Shane, an Emeritus Astronomer at Lick
Observatory who served on the NAS Review Panel for the Condon
Report followed. He agreed with Condon, saying reputable
scientists would not take the time to refute all the wild
claims made by UFO buffs. He saw the symposium as equivalent
to one on astrology or Velikovsky's views.
[16]
However, Page did not give up on getting Condon to speak. He
felt Condon became upset because word leaked out about his
appearance before he received his invitation. Page told
Roberts that in the future all the names would remain secret
until receipt of the acceptances. If, in fact, Condon refused
then perhaps Roach and/or Low could talk about the Colorado
Project.
[17]
Page wanted Major Quintanilla, the Air Force officer in charge
of Blue Book, to appear. He asked Hynek to intercede with
Quintanilla's commander to obtain permission. Page cautioned
Hynek to keep all the prospective speakers names quiet because
he feared some, such as Condon, would not accept if they knew
who else might take part.
[18]
Apparently the political problems inherent in this endeavor
were new to Page for he said in a note to Sagan, "In an
attempt to improve on my political naivete I cut up the copies
of our tentative program for Price-Williams, Hynek and
Sullivan, warning them that changes may be made if some
proposed speakers do not accept." In other words, Page
sent out the programs to prospective speakers, but excised the
names of those issued invitations. In passing he mentioned
that Roberts continued to cajole Condon in the direction of
an acceptance.
[19]
Roberts wrote to Condon to invite him to participate on behalf
of Page, Sagan and Morrison. He pointed out that many school
teachers would be present in the audience (Condon feared the
insidious effects of permitting children to devote science
class hours to UFOs in school) which would be an ideal time to
discuss the dangers of introducing crackpot ideas in the
curriculum. The planners tried to be careful with Condon, as
shown by the following:
[20]
Your participation has been planned in such a way that we do
not think there will be any likelihood of vitriolic exchanges
on the platform. And we have carefully chosen chairmen who
should be able to keep things, throughout the symposium,
generally in control, even if there are some extreme UFO
cranks in the audience.
The same day Page set about correcting his earlier faux pax
with Condon, no doubt having previously coordinated his
efforts with Roberts. He explained his error in permitting
the AAAS to send out a tentative speakers list in June and he
regretted that it happened. He told Condon:
[21]
Our hope is to correct some of the public misconceptions your
study uncovered, and to show the public that scientists can
discuss controversial topics rationally, and with a sense of
humor.... It is true that we also agreed to invite one
scientist whose speculations we do not individually agree with
but our purpose is clear: if we don't exhibit the other side,
how can we correct the misconceptions listed in the Condon
Report?
But these efforts did not prevail, in fact it would appear
that they infuriated Condon. He wrote a refusal and some
choice remarks to Page, the AAAS Board and "most
invitees." He said he did not know about the symposium in June,
but he wished that he did so that he could have started opposition
to it earlier. He hoped that time still remained to cancel it
because the press coverage would focus on the sensational and
irresponsible with a resulting disservice to the AAAS on the
part of Page and Sagan. Condon enclosed copies of the
Hoagland and Shane letters to underscore the fact "that I am
not alone in this matter."
[22]
Nor did Condon stop at refusing to take part; he also
attempted to get others to decline. R. E. McCrosky of
Harvard's Astrophysical Observatory informed Sagan that he
could not accept the invitation and
felt it best to phrase his decline in terms of the
Condon-Shane-Hoagland correspondence. He stated that he did
not want harm to come to the AAAS or for mass resignations to
occur. Moreover, he viewed the UFO issue as one of the least
important problems facing science. Consequently he urged that
the symposium be called off.
[23]
Page decided to counter Condon's campaign in order to shore up
the ground on which the symposium stood. He wrote Wolfle at
the AAAS on the topic of Condon's circulation of the letters
opposing the symposium. Page asked for the support of the
AAAS, arguing that his motives were much the same as Condon's
for doing the Condon Report, that Shane's fears of focusing on
the sensational seemed unwarranted, and that Hoagland's
disquietude over supporting the charlatans and the deluded
would prove unjustified. Page claimed the facts which emerged
from the Condon Report indicated:
Therefore, he felt that the symposium would prove to be an
educational effort of great significance.
[24]
Sagan did not give up on Condon. He asked him to reconsider
his decision in light of the fact that the people who appeared
with him would be sober, responsible and critical. Sagan also
referred to Condon's 9/5/69 comments stating that no one on
the arrangements committee leaked the fact that he accepted,
the people cited in the Rocky Mountain News article were
never considered for the symposium,
and in fact, proposals for UFO research did go to NSF because he
reviewed one.
[25]
Brian O'Brien, the retired physicist who chaired the AFSAB Panel
on UFOs in 1966, also declined. He claimed unfamiliarity with the
subject would make it impossible for him to add anything to the
discussion. Condon reached him either verbally or by letter, however,
for he said that if Sagan took the proper precautions with the press
that the problems anticipated by Condon could be avoided.
[26]
But Condon was not the only one that Page and Sagan had to
contend with. Donald Menzel had not been heard from for a
while, probably because of his visit to Europe. On his return
Roberts wrote Page that he intended to protest. He didn't
want to give a platform to people he labeled as crackpots and
worse. Because McDonald excluded him from the Roush Hearings
he still fumed and claimed that McDonald did not abide by the
standard rules of evidence. He indicated that he would not
appear in the same symposium as McDonald; that his refusal was
final. In addition, he wanted to know about the formal
channels for protest because he intended to do everything he
could to stop the symposium. This worried Roberts because he
could see that the possibility of mass withdrawals from the
program was a reality, one which would spoil the balance of
the panels.
[27]
Page was indeed having trouble finding speakers. He believed
that Condon talked McCrosky, who was to speak on the Prairie
Network of Sky Cameras, out of appearing and then the Air
Force informed him that it would not provide speakers, meaning
Quintanilla.
[28]
Finally, David Atlas of the University of Chicago, an authority
on anomalous
propagation phenomena, i.e., unusual atmospheric conditions
resulting in radar returns, explained that he had to conduct
experiments during the period that the AAAS Meetings would be
held and consequently could not take part. Atlas said,
however, that the Condon letters did not bear on his
declination, in fact, he considered the symposium a good
idea.
[29]
Sagan continued his efforts to win converts and bolster the
status of the symposium enterprise. He wrote a letter to
Roberts, Page, Morrison, Condon, and the AAAS Board, which he
no doubt meant to influence the latter two. He said that in
criticizing the UFO endeavor some thought that astrology and
Velikovsky might be next. He wanted to agree with the
reasoning, but not with the implied absurdity of the
conclusion. Sagan pointed to a drift in the universities away
from the sciences and toward borderland areas. He believed
symposia such as the one planned for the UFO phenomenon
provided a way to confront such claims with the scientific
method. He went on to argue that an obligation existed for
the AAAS and other similar organizations to address subjects
which already interested the public. In the UFO case men with
good credentials disagreed, making it the duty of the
scientific community to keep the lines of communication open.
At that point he tried to social pressure Condon and others by
citing a 1969 statement which emanated from a conference on
"Science and the Future" sponsored by the BAAS and the AAAS
which accorded with his above comments. Edward Condon, Ian
Cox, Steven Dedijer, Dame Kathleen Lonsdale, Robert Morrison
and Sagan signed it.
[30]
This approach did not win the day with Condon. He responded
to Sagan with a five page single spaced letter to explain why
he would not participate and to detail his past involvement.
The letter carried the following statement:
|
| CONFIDENTIAL: |
Intended to be read only by those to whom copies were sent. Distribution list at end. |
|
He began by saying that the symposium would not contribute to
a popular understanding of science or the scientific method.
He said, to the contrary, it might show some of the less
praiseworthy traits of the scientists on the panels. Condon
hoped the AAAS Board would cancel the proceedings. His
presence was out of the question because "participation would
bring me into contact with individuals in whose integrity I
lack confidence." He then continued for three and one half
pages outlining his experience with the UFO phenomenon and
those associated with it. The implication was clear; It
constituted nonsense and he desired no further entanglements.
The following received copies:
[31]
Thornton Page
Philip Morrison Walter Roberts The AAAS Board Philip Handler and the NAS Review Panel Philip Seitz, President of the NAS Daniel Gillmor, Editor of the Condon Report Walter Sullivan of the New York Times William Price, AFOSR J. R. Smiley, President of the University of Texas at El Paso Fred Thieve, President of CU Harold Brown, President of the California Institute of Technology William Markowitz, Marquette University Richard Kassander, University of Arizona Hector Quintanilla, Blue Book
Others who have a need to know in connection with possible future
efforts to get support for UFO studies.
Spiro Agnew, Chairman, National Aeronautics and Space Council Lee DuBridge, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Branch Bob Seamans, Secretary of the Air Force John H. Chaffee. Secretary of the Navy Tom O. Paine, NASA William D. McElroy, NSF Bob M. White, ESSA Senator Clinton Anderson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Astronautical and Space Sciences Representative George Miller, Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics
While Condon reiterated his refusal Menzel began to
capitulate, but with conditions. He told Page that he would
take part with regrets but, "The condition is that I be
allotted a time equal to the sum of the time allotted to Hynek
and McDonald or one hour, whichever is greatest." In his note
he indicated that Page verbally accepted the arrangement in a
phone conversation.
[32]
In addition, he wrote to Roberts to say that although his
misgivings still remained, and there existed strong pressures
not to participate, he would, nevertheless, take part for
several reasons. First of all he felt he would like to stop
the symposium, but he could see that such an effort would
fail. Secondly, the program, according to Menzel, did not
have balance and since he was the only one with extensive
experience studying Air Force Cases he believed a
responsibility existed to the AAAS to make his conclusions
known. It upset him and he thought it unfair to be required
to appear with five scientists who testified at the Roush
Hearings, particularly when the only places they published
were sensational magazines, press releases and newspapers. He
advised Roberts that the participants should be
prohibited from releasing their own press material; he felt
all press releases should go through the AAAS.
[33]
The following day Menzel wrote Roberts again. He reiterated
his desire to see the affair cancelled, but said that he would
appear. He would do so because of his experience in the area.
Moreover, he intended to counter those who wanted to use the
AAAS to get Federal funds for UFO studies. Therefore, he did
not want his participation interpreted as endorsement but as a
means of opposing those who desired to use the AAAS for their
own ends.
[34]
After receiving Condon's letter of 10/6/69 Page became upset,
if we can judge from a response he penned but never sent for
fear of rousing Condon again. He said he sympathized with the
treatment Condon experienced at the hands of extremists and
hoped Condon could understand his resentment of the treatment
the AAAS Special UFO Committee now received from another group
of extremists. He asserted they would carry on, however, just
as Condon's group did. Page claimed the logic of how the AAAS
could be damaged by a nine hour symposium, when Condon's team
worked fifteen months on the subject escaped him. He went on
to say that if Condon opposed the authoritarian methods
utilized against Galileo that he should stop his appeals to
authority. Page intended to enclose 21 stamps so that Condon
could send copies of the letter and his response to the people
on his distribution list.
[35]
As if Sagan and Page didn't have enough problems, Hynek made a
complaint from the other camp. The experience and competence
of several of the proposed speakers concerned him. He asked
if Menzel, Morrison or Condon (apparently he did not know
Condon declined) ever investigated cases? He continued:
Yet they will speak most learnedly of the phenomenon. Better
I should address a medical association on the function of the
liver and its diseases, about which I would have as much
information as Morrison about UFOs.
He said that if Menzel claimed he examined all the Air Force
files he would be prepared to state that he (Menzel) had not.
Hynek suggested that Page would do better to include George
Kocher from The Rand Corporation, William Powers from
Northwestern's Astronomy Department or Joachim Kuettner from
ESSA.
[36]
Page told Hynek that Powers would add little, but he would
propose Kocher. He said Hynek could ask Menzel at the
symposium about his outlined cases, "but he will get sore
(which we don't want) if you claim he is ignorant." Page
assured Hynek that Morrison would not talk about cases, but
rather the nature of scientific inquiry.
[37]
The claim that Menzel examined all the Air Force files
apparently raised Hynek's hackles for the above letters were
not the end of it. No doubt because Hynek considered himself
the authority on Air Force cases and knew Menzel couldn't have
examined some 10,000 or so reports in the few days he spent at
Blue Book in 1962 or 1963. He told Sagan:
[38]
Thornton Page wrote me saying that he hoped whatever I had to
say would not make Menzel "sore" and I had replied
that if Menzel got "sore" that was his problem, but
that I would not countenance his stating that he had examined
all the Air Force files.
In response to Page's comments Hynek stated that he did not
intend to make personal remarks except in self defense. He
claimed that he would come to the symposium to report on and
not to sell UFOs; moreover he would not attack Condon
directly.
[39]
Page forwarded a summary of his talk to Menzel and asked
Menzel to prepare one as per the guidelines of the symposium.
Page included a bibliography of UFO literature which Menzel
criticized as inadequate. Menzel argued that two lists
labeled "crackpot" and "scientific" were
in order. Only Tacker, Sullivan, Cantril, Klass, Condon, Markowitz
and by implication Menzel belonged on the scientific list.
[40]
While on the topic he pointed out that neither McDonald or
Hynek published anything that could be viewed as a scientific
approach to the problem.
Regarding a summary of his presentation Menzel hesitated. He
said he didn't know of the requirement and might not prepare
it because he didn't want the content of his paper known to
McDonald and Hynek. But if they forwarded theirs, then he
would write up his since he saw himself as providing balance
to their position. He told Page that he continued to favor
cancellation.
[41]
Menzel was far from a happy man at this point for he would
take part under duress and as he saw it his protests went
unheeded. He wrote Roberts to this effect, saying that
Roberts' letter of 10/10/69 almost made him decide to withdraw
for he claimed that Roberts misconstrued his letters of
10/7/69 and 10/8/69. He wanted Roberts to convey to the AAAS
Board his reasons for wanting the symposium cancelled, not his
reasons for agreeing to appear. Noting that Condon,
Quintanilla, Atlas and O'Brien did not intend to submit papers
and that six participants from the Roush Hearings were, he
plaintively asked why he just didn't withdraw and leave the
proceedings to the believers.
[42]
Roberts worded his reply in conciliatory terms. He apologized
for the ambiguity in his 10/10/69 letter claiming that he felt
he
understood Menzel's reasons for wanting the symposium cancelled
and for taking part and he informed the AAAS Board of both.
He told Menzel he would help in any manner he could to make
participation easier.
[43]
Although Page did not send his letter of 10/8/69 to Condon,
judging from Condon's 11/7/69 letter to him Page probably
relayed his concern either as an aside in a note asking Condon to
look over an article on UFOs which Page wrote for the
Encyclopedia Britannica, or possibly by enclosing the
10/8/69 letter even though it bears the "not sent" heading in
Sagan's files. Condon asserted that he did not send copies of
his 10/6/69 letter to individuals in government in the hope
that they might in some way cancel the symposium, but rather
to warn them about future attempts to get UFO research grants.
Condon made the further claim that holding the UFO proceedings
had nothing to do with the "preservation of freedom of
scientific inquiry, for a specious presentation of both sides
will merely confuse the public all the more by giving AAAS
sponsorship to scientific chicanery."
[44]
Another consideration began to take on importance in Sagan's
mind -- namely Menzel's health. At 68 years of age Menzel did
not have a good heart; Sagan feared, after reading the
10/30/69 letter to Roberts, that Menzel's "heated
approach"
might cause him to have a heart attack in the session that
Sagan chaired. He asked Roberts "do you think there is any
way we can cool him down?"
[45]
Based upon a letter from Menzel to Page it would seem that
Page wrote him on 11/6/69 to advise Menzel not to get upset
over the symposium because it could harm his health. Menzel
agreed to that, but said it only angered him that he agreed to
take part when the list of
knowledgeable people such as Condon, McCrosky, Quintanilla and
O'Brien kept dwindling, while Sagan, Drake and Morrison were
not knowledgeable about the subject, leaving him to do battle
with the "believers" from the Roush Symposium.
Finally, he wanted to know if it were true that Sagan and Page
did not invite Klass because McDonald refused to appear with
him?
[46]
Hynek also wrote to Sagan of his concern for Menzel's health
problem and said he didn't want him to have a heart attack.
His previous remarks, he stated, regarding Menzel's
examination of Air Force cases in retrospect seemed a bit
edgy; he would correct Menzel if necessary, but wanted a
friendly discussion.
[47]
Klass probably complained to Menzel when Sagan and Page did
not ask him to speak, which prompted the above remark to Page
on McDonald's refusal to appear if Klass spoke. At about that
time Klass apparently volunteered his services through Roberts
because Page wrote the former to explain that it was too late.
He told Klass that since he (Klass) refused in 1968 that the
committee did not bother to contact him.
[48]
Actually the reason Page gave - tardiness -- is debatable
because on the same day he wrote Klass he sent out a last
minute invitation to George Kocher of Rand.
[49]
Klass responded by recounting his earlier interactions with
Page and Sagan for the purpose, according to him, of informing
the AAAS Board of the pre-symposium history. His remarks put
Page's refusal in a slightly different light. He said he
wrote Roberts about the poor balance on the panels thinking
the planners weren't aware of it, and Roberts replied that it
seemed difficult to get critics to speak. Klass
labeled six of the proposed panelists moderate to strong
proponents of the ETH. He told Page that based on his 1968
organizing experience Page knew critics would decline, which
was all the more reason to ask Klass. Contrary to Page's
remarks he said he did not refuse to appear at Dallas, in fact
was eager, but Sagan offered only 5-10 minutes on the program
and Page offered 10-12 minutes, so naturally he refused since
McDonald and Hynek would receive 45-50 minutes. Nevertheless,
he wrote to Sagan in the summer of 1969 and in September to
Page indicating he would speak, but did not receive a reply.
In closing Klass made it clear that he believed that the AAAS
would survive the symposium but, "it pains me to find that the
AAAS will lend its prestige to pumping new life into this
pseudo-scientific fantasy."
[50]
Page told Menzel that as he viewed it, Klass withdrew the
previous summer and now wanted "to get in on the
act," however
it was too late. With respect to Menzel's concern about
balance, Page assured him that McDonald was in a minority and
would be opposed by Franklin Roach, an astronomer, Lester
Grinspoon, a psychiatrist; Robert Baker, an astronautical
engineer; Kenneth Hardy, a meteorologist; and Philip Morrison,
a physicist. He assured Menzel that McDonald's late summary
resulted from his defensive stance.
[51]
Meanwhile Sagan took Menzel's advice and wrote McDonald to
explain that the AAAS would put out one press release based on
the summaries of the individual papers, rather than letting
each participant issue his own statement.
[52]
This was in direct response to McDonald's tactic of meeting
with the press whenever he could and distributing his UFO papers.
In his reply to Klass Page treated him lightly by saying that
he (Page) was sorry Klass was so emotional in his effort to
dispel historical misconceptions. He said that a psychologist
would speak to that phenomenon in the symposium. As for
Klass' claim that six panelists were pro-ETH, Page asserted
just the opposite was true. He apologized for the 10 minute
offer and for failing to answer Klass' September letter before
telling him not to add any more to the AAAS correspondence
load for, "we want to keep our sense of perspective and humor
for December 26-27."
[53]
The Klass reply spoke to the composition of the symposium
panels and the intentions of Page. With respect to the former
Klass stated the panelists Page considered anti-UFO, with the
exception of Menzel, were pro or neutral, while definitely
inexperienced. On the other hand, McDonald, Hynek and Hall,
he argued, were familiar with case material which could not be
countered by the above mentioned inexperienced speakers. He
further claimed that based on a letter written to Walter
Sullivan of the New York Times, Page was obviously
pro-ETH and wanted the symposium to focus on that hypothesis.
[54]
That proved to be the last of the Page-Klass exchange.
This ended the efforts to both organize and stop the
symposium. Of significance to some was the seemingly deftly
timed announcement on December 19, just a week prior to the
symposium, that the Air Force decided to follow the
recommendation of the Condon Report by closing its Blue Book
project. Regardless, the symposium took place December 26 and
27 in the midst of a heavy Boston snow which caused McDonald
to miss the first day. The event did not prove exciting or
the demise of the AAAS.
Walter Roberts read Menzel's paper on doctor's orders for fear
that Menzel might suffer a heart attack at the podium. Before
it was over sixteen scientists participated in an orderly
fashion.
It seems that McDonald did not know of Condon's 10/6/69 letter
with Spiro Agnew as one of its recipients. He became aware of
the matter in Boston and interpreted Condon's behavior, as did
Page, as an appeal to Agnew to stop the proceedings. McDonald
gave a statement to UPI explaining that he would protest
Condon's actions through the appropriate AAAS channels.
[55]
An issue of some import which arose as a result of the
termination of Blue Book became the preservation of the 12,000
or so case reports the Air Force filed at WPAFB. A number of
individuals feared that the Air Force might destroy 22 years
worth of data. Consequently, twelve of the sixteen panelists
along with Roberts composed a document sent by Page to
Secretary of the Air Force Seamans which made four requests:
Walter Roberts, Franklin Roach, William Hartmann, Lester
Grinspoon, Robert Hall, Philip Morrison, Douglas
Price-Williams, J. Allen Hynek,
James McDonald, Carl Sagan, Walter Sullivan, George Kocher and
Thornton Page signed the request.
[56]
Menzel wrote Page that he wanted to store the material, but he
thought it should be impounded for ten years to keep it from
the "buffs" and to allow time to restore a sense of
balance to the subject. He said he thought qualified people were
entitled access to the material, on the authorization of the
Secretary of the Air Force or the president of the NAS, but he
didn't know how to define qualified. Basically, he said, he
wanted to keep McDonald, Hynek and UFO groups such as APRO and
NICAP from having access to the data.
[57]
As a final determination for the Blue Book file problem the
Air Force sent them to its library archives at the Air War
College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The results of the
symposium were limited. The papers were largely conservative
with the exception of Hynek and McDonald. Sagan and Page
eventually published them in a book which is considered an
authoritative academic reference work on UFOs in the sense
that it presents the gamut of scientific opinion as of
1969.
[58]
The repercussions of the symposium for the AAAS
and the scientific community were nil. There were no mass
resignations of scientists from the AAAS nor did the public
interpret the AAAS Symposium as endorsement of UFOs by that
august scientific body and as a result turn out in throngs to
demand a Congressional investigation or a NASA type agency to
study the problem. In short, the UFO situation that existed
before the symposium remained much the same afterward, and the
publication of the Sagan-Page volume of papers in 1973
seemingly did not effect the number of academics involved with
the issue.
In the previous chapters we only looked at McDonald's strategy
and tactics, yet in each instance there also existed opposing
individuals and groups with their own strategies and tactics.
In this chapter the opportunity arose to examine the "other
side." In this instance, the other side did not so much oppose
McDonald as it opposed Sagan and Page for their naive attempt
to organize the AAAS UFO Symposium. Nevertheless, it is an
excellent occasion to observe the manner in which this
opposition took form and the way in which it functioned; for
it proceeded in a similar fashion against McDonald on other
issues.
Menzel and Condon saw Sagan and Page as sympathetic to the
ETH, but were more concerned, I think, that they were dupes of
the flying saucer conspiracy. Therefore, they believed, as
elder statesmen of science, that it was their duty to do all
in their power to stop the symposium plans which would tarnish
that revered body and lend support to the notion that UFOs
represented a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.
On the other hand, Sagan and Page conceived of Condon and
Menzel as extremists, who exaggerated the harm which could
come from the symposium and failed to see the good which could
be derived. The good they defined as confronting a bizarre
belief system with the scientific method and witnessing the
demise of the former. This they believed would redound to the
long term benefit of science as an ongoing process.
The strategy for Sagan and Page consisted of doing what
appeared necessary to hold the symposium. To the contrary,
the strategy of
Menzel and Condon comprised doing whatever was necessary to
stop it. Let's look at the tactics each employed to implement
their respective strategies.
The obstructionist tactics of Condon and Menzel differed.
Condon never intended to take part and he didn't. Menzel
didn't want to, but in the end could not resist the challenge.
Consequently Condon took steps to actually stop the symposium,
while Menzel basically needed to be dragged to the altar.
Menzel actually began his obstructionist tactics in the summer
of 1968 in an attempt to stop the originally conceived Dallas
symposium. He, Klass and Markowitz tried to draft a letter of
protest to Science which in the end they never sent. Then in
January of 1969 he urged Page to exclude crackpots, meaning
scientists like McDonald, and said he would not appear with
them. He suggested cancellation if a one-sided program were
not feasible and held out the possibility that Condon would
appear in such a one-sided event.
When he returned from Europe in September he told Roberts he
would not appear, and intended to stop the symposium; he said
he intended to use formal AAAS channels of protest. In
October, however, he relented, assuming he would get speaking
time equal to that of McDonald and Hynek combined. He
indicated to Roberts that he would participate to offset the
five scientists who spoke at the Roush Hearings and to see to
it that they didn't use the AAAS to obtain funding for UFO
studies. However, he remained of the opinion that
cancellation was the best thing for the AAAS. In late October
he made his last attempt at being
obstreperous by refusing to forward Page a summary of his
paper until he received summaries from McDonald and Hynek.
The battle with Condon occurred during September. He began by
telling Roberts he would not attend any AAAS functions if the
symposium were held and ridiculed the AAAS for its pro-UFO
position. Then he began an effort to get various elder
statesmen of science to oppose the function and others to
cancel their appearances. In the former group Hoagland of
Harvard and Shane of the Lick Observatory appealed to the AAAS
with Condon. To make his case Condon distributed copies of
their AAAS letters of protest, and his own, to various
prominent scientists and to all the prospective symposium
participants. Condon argued that the event would do a
disservice to the AAAS and only provide a platform for
legitimating future efforts of UFO buffs to obtain Federal
money for UFO studies.
As a result of this campaign McCrosky of Harvard cancelled his
presentation for the good of the AAAS. O'Brien of the AFSAB
also declined as did Atlas of the University of Chicago,
although they claimed it was not due to Condon's lobbying.
And finally, the Air Force refused to provide speakers, who,
Page hoped, would present the official position.
When it seemed that the symposium would be held anyway Condon made a last appeal to Sagan in which he reiterated his early arguments and encapsulated the history of his own involvement with UFOs. As a last minute effort he sent carbons to everyone in the scientific and governmental communities who he thought had "a need to know," particularly with respect to future funding policies in the area.
The tactics of Sagan, Page and to a lesser extent Roberts
focused on obtaining speakers for the symposium. This
involved humoring Menzel and Condon, countering Menzel and
Condon, and trying to appease Menzel and Condon. They did
this because Menzel and Condon were the most important members
of the anti-UFO camp. Without their presence it was felt the
symposium would lack balance and fail to obtain support from
the AAAS Board.
Because of the opposition to the symposium in 1968 Page
expected similar objections in 1969. As early as January he
told Sagan that the best way to avoid a confrontation would be
to have three panels to insure that McDonald would not appear
with Menzel and Condon. In April the situation became so
tense that Sagan suggested to Page that Condon and McDonald
should be scheduled on separate days. In September after
Condon became infuriated over the rumor that he would take
part, when in fact he remained uninvited, Page told both
Roberts and Hynek to keep the panelists names quiet until they
formally accepted. To insure this Page sent out tentative
programs to potential speakers with the panelists names
excised.
When Condon said he would not speak several efforts were made
during September to persuade him to do so. Roberts, knowing
Condon's opposition to the allocation of school time for
pseudoscience, told him that many school teachers would attend
the symposium which would provide a good opportunity to
educate them. Page used a different approach. He told Condon
they wanted to hold the symposium to correct the public
misconceptions which the Colorado study unearthed. Sagan also
asked Condon to reconsider and in the same letter explained
his
rationale for the benefit of the AAAS Board. He claimed it
was necessary to counter borderland science notions with the
scientific method because the physical sciences lost too many
good students to the study of the bizarre.
Sagan, Page and Roberts used a similar strategy when Menzel
returned from Europe to find the symposium planning in full
swing. Throughout November Roberts, Page and Sagan worked on
him. Roberts told him everything possible would be done to
make his appearance easier. Because Page feared Menzel might
have a heart attack he told him not to get upset over the
planning. Sagan evinced the same concern, but feared the
attack would occur during the symposium. He asked Roberts how
they might cool Menzel off. When Menzel charged the panel
with pro-ETH sympathies Page explained that six or so members
would oppose McDonald. Finally, Sagan took Menzel's advice
with respect to publicity and informed McDonald that the AAAS,
rather than the participants, would arrange for it.
Organizers
Sagan
Page
Roberts
Obstructionists
Menzel
Condon
*Editor's Note: Sullivan was actually the science editor of the Times; he was appointed to that position in 1964.
|