UFO CONSENSUS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010008-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 12, 2001
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: December 8, 1967
• Content Type: MISC

I-OdiFor Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R000100010008-3~
argument and UFO reports is t e fact
that objects have been reported to land
and take off. Having arbitrarily settled
Letters
I agree with Markowitz ("The phys-
ics and metaphysics of unidentified fly-
ing objects," 15 Sept., p. 1274) that ex-
traterrestrial control of UFO's is unlike-
ly. Nevertheless I find his arguments
unconvincing.
First, a minor point-he seems to
imply that Hynek is inconsistent when
he states that; UFO's have been' seen
by "scientifi,::i!!v trained people" but
have not been seen by "trained ob-
>,etvers. ? i tha: the distinction here is
casonably !,.::.
In this 3'.: of lasers, superpower
microwaves, :,nd superconducting mag-
nets, his appeal to the law of Stefan-
l3oltzmann scenes curiously unimagina-
tive, as does his dependence upon solid
nn faces to deilect high-energy particles.
He arrives at a power required for
interstellar flight of 3 X 101:; watts,
noting that it is 30 times the world's
electric generating capacity. An equally
pertinent comparison would be to note
'that it is only 300 times the power of
a single Saturn V, and that only a single
decade of development effort separates
that vehicle from its 300 times smaller
predecessor! In any case, why does an
interstellar vehicle need an acceleration
of Ig?
On the other hand, a ship for such
a voyage would probably weigh much
more than 5000 kilograms. So in the
end, one must agree that a satisfactory
interstellar propulsion system is quite
beyond the of our present
technology. !..it his arguments in no
w?ty prove
someone cis
we will ha\e
.::_.a!y that it is beyond
rven beyond what
00 wars from now. As
fair as proven;, that interstellar flight
violates the is ws of physics. his argu-'
rnents are simply irrelevant.
His ar;_a ant that the ground should
be searce....... radioactive where a UFO
has tout' ~+.own also seems irrele-
vant. Isi'. , probable that such voy-
agers V+Oi.. c "excursion modules"
just as we - -,pose to do? And why
use a specific impulse of 3 X 107 sec-
onds to lift off the earth when 1000
seconds or less would do? In short, the
use of an interstellar space ship to ex-
plore within our atmosphere seems
about as likely as the use of airliners
to explore the bottom of the sea.
Why suggest that a 1000-year trip
duration should make the voyagers anx-
ious to meet us formally? An alterna-
tive deduction would be that another
hundred years, more or less, is of little
consequence to them. The fact that
Columbus did not hesitate to talk to
the Indians was not without conse-
quences that were unfortunate for Eur-
ope and tragic for the Indians. Per-
haps our interstellar visitors have
learned to be more cautious-and con-
siderate.
Finally, the suggestion that "hard-
data" cases should be published for all
of 'the technical community to peruse,
just like observations of any other in-
teresting phenomena, seems construc-
tive. But why insist, on the other hand,
that the Air Force should completely
drop the matter? The only valid argu-
ment against extraterrestrial visitors is,
I believe, a statistical one. The proba-
bility of there being a civilization ad-
vanced enough, near enough, and dili-
gent enough to find us is simply not
very high.
RICHARD J. ROSA
Avco Everett Research Laboratory,
2385 Revere Beach Parkway,
Everett, Massachusetts 02149
I acknowledge Markowitz' analysis of
the UFO problem, and wish him well
in the next field to which he lends
his attention, since he has apparently
finished this one. He cannot depart
quickly enough, however, to escape the
objections of those he left standing
amid the shambles. His entire argument
ainst the possibility of extraterrestrial
a
g
'control of UFO's rests on theoretical I WILLIAM T. POWERS
grounds, and bears no relationship to Dearborn Observatory,
the contents of UFO reports. The one Northwestern University,
link between Markowitz' theoretical Evanston, Illinois 60201
S DL?CEMMIHa. n7 1265
Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R900100010008-3
on a design for a snip employing an-
nihilation of matter for power and a
horribly inefficient photon drive for
thrust, Markowitz proceeds to imagine
this starship entering the atmosphere of
a planet and landing on its surface, us-
ing the full fury of its interstellar drive,
a process akin to docking the Forrestal
by running it up onto a beach. Since
the obvious results of such foolishness
have never been observed, Markowitz
concludes, "Hence, the published re-
ports of landings and lift-offs of UFO's
are not reports of spacecraft controlled
by extraterrestrial beings, if the laws
of physics are valid." The non sequitur
is blatant: Markowitz has proven only
that his own design does not explain
reports of takeoffs or landings. He has
revealed his own haste to arrive at a
particular: conclusion.
When Markowitz "assumes for pur-
poses of discussion" the existence of
technically advanced beings, one might
expect that this assumption would play
a part in, the discussion, but evidently
the implications of such an assumption
have escaped his notice. A technically
advanced race just a cosmic clock-tick
ahead of,us in achievement would not
only have inconceivably advanced sci-
entific ability, but technological skill be-
yond our comprehension. Such beings
would effectively command immense
wealth; what would seem to us impos-
sibly ambitious, ruinously expensive, and
even frivolous undertakings would be
carried out with a casualness that would
shock our poverty-stricken souls. It is
no more possible for us to expand our
minds enough to encompass what will
be the truth in a thousand years than
it would have been for Charlemagne to
speculate; on the present gross national
product of France, without even a word
for 109. The contrast between the no-
tion of an advanced civilization's mode
of transport (as one may legitimately
attempt io imagine it) and Markowitz'
sketchy design for a starship is ludi-
crous.
Of course there may not be any ad-
vanced civilization, or any starships.
Nobody can go beyond. premise-bound
speculations on those subjects, and even
our speculations are denied the use of
physical principles and effects that re-
 Markowitz' failure to find de- vation or parity is one of the immu-
tailed -eports in print is puzzling. That
he shcuA base his arguments on the
minor" Chiles-Whitted case (of which
it is true that my evaluation is at vari-
an,.e with Hynek's) or such a brief
observation, made under unfavorable
conditions, as the Tombaugh case, tends
to indicate that he is not really inter-
ested in the best documented sightings;
on the contrary, he is deliberately se-
lecting borderline cases in an effort to
cast doubts on the validity of current
official and private attempts at system-
atic data-gathering. Otherwise, how
can ".vc undcrstand that the Forcalquier
photographs (taken by a professional
astronomer) or the observations made
at Toulouse and Mount Stromlo observ-
atories, or the Loch Raven Dam and
Socorro cases, all of which are exten-
sively documented in print, should have
escaped his attention? He goes as far
as stating that no unexplained physi-
cal trace has ever been left after the
observation of an unknown aerial
phenomenon, while one of the books
he quotes in his bibliography describes
at length the investigations conducted
by Soviet physicists at the site of the
Sib.:.- an c> ,losion in 1908, which
conn~ very close to meeting the condi-
tiorwr, Narkowitz himself has set for
,'evi.:ncc.."
I;"v,l,ere, commenting on my sur-
vey of the observations of unknown
celestial objets gathered and studied
by L Verr, icr, he kindly reminds me
that the intra-Mercury planet theory
is an impossibility, as if I had ever
suggested that the objects in question
were such a thing.
Thus, Markowitz is guided by one
and only one idea: that one may not
consr'der the "intelligent control" hypoth-
esis unless one is willing to abandon
entirely the rational processes upon
which science is based. It is a disturbing
fact that such grossly irrational argu-
ments should still enjoy popularity in
the scientific world. . . .
JACQUES
Depa;.,,e:rnt of Astronomy,
North:.western University,
Evanston,, Illinois 60201
. . . If scientists avoided topics which
involve possible violations of the in-
violable laws of physics we should have
unsung memorabilia like these: "Marie,
this phosphorescence violates the First
Law; let's study barium sulfate instead."
"Xenon can't react; it has a closed
shell. Ask any theoretician." "Conser-
Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R0001 00010008-3
table laws of physics, therefore it is im-
possible that . .."
I doubt very much that UFO's are
under extraterrestrial control, but if
they were so controlled I am sure we
primitive bipeds could prove the con-
trary by citing our laws of physics.
THOMAS R. P. GIBB, JR.,
Department of Chemistry,
Tufts University,
Medford, Massachusetts 02155
Markowitz has closed the door on
UFO's arid space travel by showing that
interstellar vehicles can never have
visited Earth because neither he nor
any Congressional committee has seen
one. Only unreliable witnesses see
UFO's which might be extraterrestrial.
(An unreliable witness is anyone who
reports a UFO that isn't an obvious
natural or aerial phenomenon.) The
scientific journals would, of course, be
full of observational accounts, if any
credible ones were presented, and scien-
tists would he as eager to study them
as they were Vclikovsky's work 15
years ago. The evidence against UFO's
as space vehicles, based on Simon
Newcomb's recent (1895) proof that
an intra-\lcrcury planet cannot exist,
is as convincing as Newcomb's dem-
onstration, following accepted phys-
ical laws, that aircraft can't fly. . . .
PHILIP C. STEFFEY
2402 Third .Street,
Santa Monica, California
While reading Markowitz' article, I
could not help thinking about some
words I believe were written by Isaac
Asimov: that when a respected scien-
tist said something was probable, he
was probably right, and if he said that.
something was impossible, he was prob-
ably wrong.
ISABEL R. A. GARCIA
152-72 Melbourne Avenue,
Flushing, New York 11367
I was amused and somewhat shocked
by Markowitz' reference to Aristotle's
"Physics" and "Metaphysics." The idea
that "metaphysics" is equated with the
notion that "the laws of physics are
not valid" is not only misleading as
it relates to Aristotle, but threatens
to make the philosopher who spe-
cializes in metaphysics some sort of
buffoon... .
GEORGE COHEN
Philosophy Department,
Long Island University,
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Smoke-Filled Friendships
As the first three couplets of the
following verse attest, I share Turbc-
ville's aversion to tobacco smoke
(Letters, 20 Oct.), though, as the last
couplet shows, I do not often express
my objections.
A cigarette's what the smoke from all goes
From wherever it is to a nonsmoker's nose.
Smokers are who, if at parties they're there,
I must later change clothing and shampoo
A nonsmoker's who, when it's too thick to
see,
If you hear someone coughing, it's prob-
ably he.
Friendship is what, though I gag, weep,
and choke,
would much rather have it than absence
of smoke.
Smokers often ask a stranger, "Do
you mind if I smoke?" If the stranger
does not smoke, he probably minds,
and is then faced with the poor choice"
of being rude or perjuring himself.
I suggest that smokers ask instead, "Do
you smoke?" and refrain if the answer
is "No."
MILTON HILDEBRAND
Department of Zoology,
University of California, Davis 95616
Buffalo River Endangered
Carter's article, "Dams and wild
rivers: looking beyond the pork barrel"
(13 Oct., p. 233), is most timely. Here
in Arkansas we have reason to be
keenly aware of the dam-building pork
barrel through our efforts to preserve
the beautiful Buffalo River in the
Ozarks of northern Arkansas. The Buf-
falo is one of the few free-flowing
streams remaining in the state. For
years it has been threatened with im-
poundment by the Corps of Engineers.
The National Park Service recom-
mends preservation of the Buffalo
as Buffalo National River. The great
majority of the people of Arkansas sup-
port preservation of the Buffalo. Bills
are pending in the U.S. House and
Senate which would establish the Buf-
falo National River, but these have not
yet come up for consideration. Despite
the growing realization of the economic
and ecological losses resulting from
unnecessary impoundments, strong pres-
sures for unjustifiable projects continue.
' L. ARCHER
Ozark Society,
Box 38, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
SCIENCE, VOL. 158
Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R0d560R000100010008-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R0001 00010008-3
The extraordinary story
of the
half-million-dollar "trick"
to make
Americans believe
the Condon committee
was conducting
an objective investigation
FLYING SAUCER FIASCO
BY JOHN G. FULLER
A STRANGE SERIES of incidents in the University of Colorado Unidentified
Flying Objects study has led to a near-mutiny by several of the staff scien-
tists, the dismissal of two Ph.D's on the staff and the resignation of the
project's administrative assistant.
The study, announced as a totally objective scientific investigation of
one of the most puzzling phenomena of modern times, has already cost
the taxpayer over half a million dollars. The committee is scheduled to
release its report by the end of the year.
The announcement by the Secretary of Defense in October, 1966,
that the Air Force had selected Dr. Edward U. Condon and the University
of Colorado for the UFO research contract was welcomed both by skeptical
observers and those convinced of the existence of flying saucers.
Maj. Donald Keyhoe and his National Investigations Committee on
Aerial Phenomena, who were among the severest critics of the Air Force's
study, publicly announced cautious support and offered NICAP's nation-
wide UFO reporting system to the new research group.
Condon, then 64, a distinguished physicist, former president of both
the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Ameri-
can Physical Society, had grappled with and subdued the House Un-
American Activities Committee, and served as director of the U.S. Govern-
ment's National Bureau of Standards from 1945 to 1951. His leadership
appeared to promise pure scientific objectivity in the study. Only two de-
tails seemed to disturb some observers. Four out of the first five investiga-
tors appointed were psychologists. And Robert J. Low, project coordinator
and key operations man in the study, held a`master's degree in business ad-
ministration (although his bachelor's degree was in electrical engineer-
ing). Some critics felt that more physical scientists were needed. Condon
assured them that the staff would become more balanced, and later, it was.
The project staff received a minor jolt early in October of 1966, when
the Denver Post published a story: CU AIDE SLAPS UFO STUDY. Low was
quoted as saying that the UFO project "comes pretty close to the criteria
of nonacceptability" as a university function.
But the massive problems of getting the project started left little time
for debate over that statement. Briefings were held in which Dr. J. Allen
Hynek, chairman of the Department of Astronomy of Northwestern Uni-
versity and one of the few scientists in the country who had given UFO's
serious study, gave the staff the background information he had acquired
in his 20 years as scientific consultant for the Air Force. Later, such au-
thorities as Major Keyhoe and Richard Hall from NICAP, Maj. Hector
Quintanilla, of the Air Force UFO study, and Dr. James McDonald, senior
physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and professor in the De-
partment of Meteorology at the University of Arizona, addressed the group.
McDonald had carried out an extensive investigation on his own.
After examining the hundreds of well-documented reports of sightings by
military and airline pilots, radar operators, police, technical observers
and articulate, rational laymen, McDonald rejected as highly unlikely such
conventional explanations for UFO's as ball lightning(plasma), hallucina-
tions, hoaxes and misinterpretations of natural phenomena. He concluded
that "only abysmally limited scientific competence has been brought to the
study of UFO's within Air Force circles in the past 15 years. Unfortunately,
during all this time, the scientific community.and the public were repeated-
ly assured that substantial scientific talent was being used...."
From the beginning, the relationship between Dr. McDonald and
Robert Low, the project coordinator, was abrasive. Low, who speaks softly,
smoothly and guardedly, contrasts sharply with McDonald, who is in-
tense and bluntly articulate.
The relationship between the Colorado group and NICAP was especial-
ly important. NICAP was large and well-organized, and could supply in-
formation on UFO sightings on a nationwide scale. NICAP hoped that the
Colorado group would retain its scientific objectivity by concentrating on
the estimated ten percent of "high credibility" cases, such as those Dr.
McDonald was investigating.
The first major turbulence in the new project came early in February,
1967. Condon, burdened by heavy responsibilities in many public and ed-
ucational projects, could not spend much time in the project offices. Low
assumed the responsibilities for most of the decision-making. But on Jan-
uary 25, Condon, known for his breezy, anecdotal style, spoke before
a chapter of Sigma Xi, the honorary scientific fraternity. The Elmira,
N.Y., Star-Gazette reported:
"Unidentified flying objects `are not the business of the Air Force,'
... Dr. Edward U. Condon said here Wednesday night.... Dr. Condon
left no doubt as to his personal sentiments on the matter: `It is my inclina-
tion right now to recommend that the Government get out of this business.
My attitude right now is that there's nothing to it.' With a smile, he added,
`but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year....' "
The story also quoted Condon as saying: "What we're always re-
duced to is interviewing persons who claim they've had some kind of ex-
perience.... I don't know of any cases where the phenomenon was still
there after the person reports it ... and it seems odd, but these people
always seem to wait until they get home before they report what they saw."
Keyhoe knew of cases where "the phenomenon was still there after
the person reported it," and where the observer didn't wait to get home
continued
58 LOOK 5.14-68 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R000100010008-3
 900 HOLTIYAflI(9.1
/04/02 :
Make your own Two-Day Getaway!
Escape to your nearby Holiday Inn for your change-of-place break in the
workday routine. There's fun for you and the children too, and so con-
veniently close to home.
Wherever you are, more than 900 Holiday Inns in over 700 cities make
it easier than ever to take a refreshing "time out" to discover the free-
and-easy getaway mood.
Your Holiday Inn Restaurant serves delicious food galore, and always
at moderate family prices. Sure, charge everything to your American
Express Card or Gulf Travel Card.
You'll know for sure than a weekend means more, when you escape
to the trusted hospitality of a Holiday Inn.
Join The Great American Escape to a Holiday Inn soon. Password-
"Refresh!"
Write for your free Holiday Inn Passport to Fun,
Food, and Lodging:
HOLIDAY INNS OF AMERICA, INC.
Dept. EX-4. Holiday City-P. O. Box 18216
Memphis, Tennessee 38118
IA-RDP81 R00560R0001 00010008-3
SAUCER FIASCO CONTINUED
A startling memo from Robert Low said
before he reported, it. He bristled. He knew that Condon had not yet in-
vestigated any field cases personally, nor had any members of the staff
completed any meaningful research. The project was only three months
old. "I have to admit," Keyhoe told David Saunders, a key staff member,
"that I'm shocked by these statements. Is this a scientific investigation cr
isn't it?"
Condon wrote Keyhoe that some of his remarks had been taken out of
context. NICAP then issued this statement: "Although we retain some reser-
vations about the impressions of Dr. Condon's attitudes conveyed through
some press accounts, we find no reason to go along with the skeptics who
interpret the project merely as the latest gambit in an Air Force propa-
ganda campaign. Having met most of the scientists involved, we are gen-
erally satisfied with their fair-mindedness and their thorough plans...."
The NICAP cooperation made it possible to establish an Early Warning
System, and staff investigators were now being dispatched for field reports.
Saunders gave particular attention to field surveys, as well as to the de-
velopment of a master casebook and staff discussions of major cases. Low
was giving the staff members considerable leeway in the approach they
were taking. Condon, with his office some distance away, did not appear
frequently, and some of the staff felt that it was often frustrating to try to
reach him. During this time, it seemed to some of the staff that several
potentially interesting cases were turned down for investigation by Low
for what were apparently specious reasons.
Another scientific investigator, Dr. Norman Levine, joined the proj-
ect and immediately became aware of the strained atmosphere developing
between Low and several members of the staff. Condon himself was heard
to say that he wished the project could give the money back.
A senior member of the staff who was asked to make a speech before
a teachers association began looking for specific details on the origin of
the project. He was told that he might find some information in the open-
files folder under the heading AIR FORCE CONTRACT AND BACKGROUND. The
relaxed open-file system was part of a general overall policy to keep the
project out of the cloak-and-dagger category. (In a later memo, Low said:
"The key point to keep in mind, it seems to me, is that our own files are
not secure, they are not confidential, they can't be kept confidential, nor
should they be.... It is inconsistent with the purposes of a university to
keep confidential any records of research activity-or any other records
for that matter.")
The staff member found most of the material about the contract rather
dull going, but one memo, written by Low to university officials on August
9, 1966, contained a few fresh details. The memo, labeled "Some Thoughts
on the UFO Project," had been written before the contract was signed. In
it, Low said : "... Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-
believers who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result,
could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is
no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the
project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but,
to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of nonbe-
lievers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expecta-
tion of finding a saucer. One way to do this would be to stress investiga-
tion, not of the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the
observing-the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who re-
port seeing UFO's. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examina-
tion of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the
scientific community would quickly get the message.... I'm inclined to
feel at this early stage that, if we set up the thing right and take pains to
get the proper people involved and have success in presenting the image
we want to present to the scientific community, we could carry the job
When Levine read the memo, he was disturbed by the word "trick"
and the phrase about making the investigation "appear a totally objective
study" to the public. Others on the staff had a similar reaction.
Many staff members were also disturbed by the news that Condon
had decided to attend the June Congress of "Ufologists" in New York. This
was a convention of far-out supporters of undocumented and highly color-
ful UFO sightings.
60 LOOK 5-14-68
Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : C A-RDP81 R00560R000100010008-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R0001 00010008-3
"the trick would be" to "appear" objective
On September 18, Condon, Low and Saunders met for the first time
in many weeks. As a result of his reading of the memo, Saunders was deep-
ly concerned about the negative approach to the UFO problem. It would
be easy, he felt, to concentrate on the nut-and-kook cases and persuasively
eliminate any serious consideration of the real problem.
The meeting went on for three hours. Low did most of the talking.
Condon seemed tired. Low's position was that Saunders was sticking his
nose into something that was none of his business. Condon's position was
that he didn't understand what Saunders was talking about.
Saunders was led to believe that if by chance the Extra Terrestrial
Intelligence (ETI) hypothesis was substantiated, the announcement would
be sent by Condon directly to the Air Force and the President, and never
be allowed to go to the public. This troubled him, because Saunders had
been given a clear understanding that the report would go first to the
National Academy of Sciences, then to the public and Air Force simul-
taneously. Saunders felt he could not let the problem drop. Another meet-
ing was agreed to.
At this point, Keyhoe suddenly sent word that NICAP was going to take
a strong stand against the Condon committee and no longer would supply
material and reports. The reason, Keyhoe said, was a new speech made
by Condon at the Atomic Spectroscopy Symposium at Gaithersburg, Md.,
on September 13, 1967. A report of the new Condon speech had already
reached Dr. McDonald in a letter from a colleague at the University of
Arizona, William S. Bickel, assistant professor of physics on the campus.
"... Dr. Condon's speech was funny and entertaining," Bickel wrote.
"But to me, it was also disappointing and surprising. Dr. Condon empha-
sized mostly funny things. He told of an offer made to him by a contactee,
who, for a sizable sum deposited in the right bank, would introduce him
to a UFO crew.... He told how he tracked the case down and concluded
that it was very likely a hoax.... My feelings about UFO's are similar to
those of many people-I don't know what they are, I believe people are
seeing real things, and I believe a scientific attack on the problem will
solve the mystery-whatever they are.... The net effect of Dr. Condon's
talk was zero, if not negative... -"
In reply to Bickel, McDonald wrote, "... The crackpots are so immedi-
ately recognizable that one need not waste any time at all on them.... I fail
to understand why a scientific group should be given an address by any
member of the Colorado team on the topic of the crackpot fringe...."
Word came from Keyhoe that he was drafting a long letter to the
Colorado study group, and NICAP would reconsider its cooperation only if
the answers to a list of questions were satisfactory.
On September 27, the Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colo.) pub-
lished this headline: UFO RESEARCH CHIEF AT CU DISENCHANTED. Condon
was quoted as saying: "I'm almost inclined to think such studies ought to
be discontinued unless someone comes up with a new idea on how to ap-
proach the problem.... The 21st century may die laughing when it looks
back on many things we have done. This [the UFO study] may be one."
The majority of the staff began exploring several proposals, including
the possibility of the entire staff resigning en masse or issuing a press re-
lease or a minority report. Another proposal was the establishment of an
independent scientific group to explore the rational sighting reports and
,eliminate the crackpot-fringe static. There was general agreement that an
objective study of the UFO problem should be made and that accurate and
unbiased findings should reach the National Academy of Sciences, the
public and the Air Force. A confrontation with Low and Condon was
arranged. Condon expressed regret that his statements had appeared in
the press. Several members of the staff told of their concern that the con-
tent and form of the final report would reflect what they now felt was
continued
Get Magnavox excellence in the
portableTV that suits you best.
Lightweight. The Contempora, with all
solid-state chassis for lasting reliability.
Easy-viewing 11" diag. (71 sq. in.) picture.
Only $119.90.
11 a ,a c
270 park Ave? Nevi York, N- York I OW
Low-Priced. The Suburbanite has power trans-
former and automatic gain control, for steady,
sharp pictures from the,generous 11" diag.
(71 sq. in.) screen. Only $89.90.
Self-Powered. The Ranger, all solid-
state with, brilliant;8":diag. (38 sq. in.)
'Picture, plays anywhere from optional
,,See all-the Magnavox portables, sold=direct through franchiser! rechargeable batte or-,,, C current:
healers (.Yellow Rages) t9 ltf l it diampl4eddlsase 2001 /04/02 - C'1,D-Rr1P"8 I F2fI fi>; if 100 1 008-'
Double-Duty. The Sun Valley gives you the versatility of
an easily moved portable plus a big 16" diag. (141 sq. in.)
picture in a handsome walnut cabinet. Mobile cart optional.
Only $129.90.''
 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R0001 00010008-3
SAUCER FIASCO CONTINUED
Condon said to one critic: "You ought to be ruined professionally.
Condon's and Low's prejudice and would be unjustifiably negative. Staff
members speculated that Condon was tired as well as disenchanted. He
remained an enigma because the staff saw so little of him.
At an informal meeting in Denver on December 12, 1967, Saunders,
Levine, McDonald and Hynek agreed that a new organization might be
formed consisting only of professional-level members, designed to assure
the continuation of intelligent UFO study regardless of whether the Condon
report were negative or positive. After Hynek left, McDonald first became
aware of Low's-memo, and expressed his shock.
On January 19, 1968, Low phoned McDonald at the University of
Arizona. McDonald reminded Low of the clearly negative tone of Con-
don's public statements over a period of time, including Condon's disturb-
ing preoccupation with the crackpot elements. He also brought up Con-
don's failure to investigate personally significant field cases or to question
any of the working staff who had been making a serious UFO study.
McDonald stressed that he was not opposed to negative findings. What
bothered him was that negative findings were already being clearly ex-
pressed by both Low and Condon. Low hung up in anger. McDonald pre-
pared a long letter to Low to review his complaints. Low did not get
around to reading the letter until February 6. In it, McDonald mentioned
for the first time his concern about the memo, quoting to Low the phrases
about "the trick." "I am rather puzzled by the viewpoints expressed there,"
McDonald wrote, "but I gather that they seem entirely straightforward to
you, else this part of the record would, presumably, not be available for
inspection in the open Project files...."
Mrs. Mary Louise Armstrong, who had worked directly with Low as
his administrative assistant, was in the office as Low finished reading the
letter. Low exploded. He said that whoever gave the memo to McDonald
should be fired immediately. Then he seemed to cool down.
0
The sttnless
steel saiidwich.
Most Teflon-coated irons have the Teflon*
bonded to a surface of aluminum. Not
Hoover's Steam/Dry Spray Iron. You see,
aluminum is a good heat conductor, but it's
soft. Scratches easily. So between the aluminum
and the Teflon, Hoover sandwiches a layer of
tough, scratch-resistant stainless steel.
A fussier way of doing things, perhaps.
But isn't that what you expect
from Hoover?
DIAMOND JUBILEE
1908-1968
On Wednesday, February 7, Saunders was summoned to Condon's
office. Low and Condon were present. The questioning focused on the
memo. Did Saunders know of it and know where it was kept? Saunders
said that the memo was only part of the whole problem. It alone did not
seem especially important, he felt. The broader issues of scientific integrity
were at stake. Condon, furious that he had not immediately been informed
that McDonald knew of the memo, told Saunders, "For an act like that,
you ought to be ruined professionally."
Saunders countered by saying that Condon and Low seemed to be
treating the symptoms rather than the disease. He reminded them of the
efforts of the entire staff to get Low and Condon to modify their intrac-
table stance. He reviewed the long sequence of events and reminded Low
that he had blocked the investigation of one particularly startling UFO
case. Low protested that the investigation on this was completed. No men-
tion was made of any dissatisfaction with Saunders's work.
Dr. Levine was summoned while Saunders was still in Condon's
office. Saunders offered to stay. Low rose from his chair and physically
ushered him out the door. Levine was unnerved by the forcible ejection of
Saunders. Again, the questioning went straight to the memo. Levine said
that he was at the Denver meeting when the memo was given to McDonald.
He understood there was nothing whatever confidential about the memo,
and did not see anything wrong with the action. Condon asked why Levine
had not brought the memo to him, and Levine said that Condon's public
and private statements had indicated that there was little likelihood of
effective communication. He told Condon that Low had slammed the door
in his face when he brought up the handling by Low of an Edwards Air
Force Base case, and recalled that Condon himself had suggested that
Levine call in sick when he was scheduled to make a talk at Colorado's
High Altitude Observatory.
62 LOOK 5.14-68 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R000100010008-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/02
A statement from the director of NICAP
After 17 months, NICAP has broken with the University of Colorado UFO
Project. We join LooK and John G. Fuller in disclosing the facts as a
public service.
At first, NICAP was dubious about an AF-financed project. After Dr.
Condon pledged a fair study, we briefed scientists, trained field teams,
loaned verified reports by pilots, aerospace engineers and other capable
observers. Later, news stories quoted Condon as strongly biased, reject-
ing all evidence. When we found that barely one half of one percent of
NICAP's cases were investigated (and none by Condon himself), we
stopped transmitting. Administrator Low's disturbing proposals and
the firing of Drs. Saunders and Levine led to our final break. .
NICAP will submit plans to the President and Congress for a new
official investigation, free of military or civilian agencies, with majority-
vote controls, frequent public reports and other safeguards. We welcome
suggestions (confidential, if desired) from scientists and other citizens
seeking a full, open evaluation. Meantime, to offset the Colorado failure,
our investigations will be intensified-NIcAP is the world's largest UFO
fact-finding organization, with over 300 scientific and technical advisers,
trained investigators and thousands of nationwide members. To help in-
crease factual evidence, we urge that all verified sightings be reported to
us. Names will be kept confidential, if requested.
Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, USMC, Ret., Director
National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena
1536 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Condon accused him of being disloyal and treacherous, and Levine
replied that loyalty to a scientific goal might take precedence over per-
sonal loyalty. Condon asked why Levine didn't invite him to come over and
investigate the important cases. Levine indicated that he did not feel it was
his place to invite the chief scientist of the project over. The questioning
lasted about an hour. Condon dismissed Levine abruptly.
Mrs. Armstrong had joined the project at its inception with no con-
victions whatever about UFO's. By February, 1967, she was convinced that
the study was being gravely misdirected. When, on February 7, 1968,
Condon told her that he was going to fire Saunders and Levine the next
day, Mrs. Armstrong's first impulse was to resign immediately. But she
then decided first to confront Condon with what she regarded as clear,
unassailable documentation of the factors behind the disagreement and
low morale of the staff.
She talked to Condon on February 22, 1968, at his office. She told
him frankly that there appeared to be an almost unanimous lack of confi-
dence in the project coordinator and his scientific direction of the project.
She pointed out that Low had indicated little interest in talking to those
who carried out the investigations or in reading their reports. She said that
her long, close association with Low gave strong evidence that he was try-
ing very hard to say as little as possible in the final report, and to say that
in the most negative way possible. At Condon's request, she wrote a follow-
up letter in which she added that the tone of the memo indicated that Low
was not unbiased from the beginning. Condon then wrote her: "My posi-
tion is that that letter is a confidential matter between the two of us and
that for you to disclose it to anyone else would be gravely unethical." But
after long consideration, Mrs. Armstrong felt that it was more important
to the public interest to state her feelings clearly.
The others who left the project also felt they had an obligation to
speak out, and when Condon failed to respond positively to his outspoken
letter of criticism, McDonald brought the matter before the executive offi-
cers of the National Academy of Sciences in a vigorous written protest.
Saunders and Levine cleared their desks at Woodbury Hall and left.
Asked about the near-mutiny in the investigating staff, Condon said
that he would make no comment. Low stated that he had absolutely "zero
comment" to make about the dismissals. Thurston E. Manning, vice presi-
dent and dean of the faculties of the University of Colorado, delivered
word through his secretary that he had nothing to say. Scott Tyler, in
charge of public relations for the university, said that he had no comment.
The hope that the establishment of the Colorado study brought with
it has dimmed. All that seems to be left is the $500,000 trick. END
Approved For Release 2001/04/02
CIA-RDP81 R0056OR000100010008-3
Everybody knows somebody who needs a more effective deodorant.
We think we've got it. Mennen Pushbutton Deodorant.
Spray for spray, Mennen delivers more of the protective ingredient
than the aerosol deodorant your friend.is probably using.
Send him (or her) a 'can. If you'd rather, send us a dollar
and we'll send the can.Delivered in a plain brown wrapper.
They'll never know who to thank.
r'---------------------------1
"Send A Can" Offer,
P.O. Box PB 68 L, Kenvil, N.J. 07847 C
I know somebody who needs Mennen Pushbutton Deodorant.
I Here is a,dollar. Will you send a can to:
Name
I' Address
I' city
State Zip
L--------------------------- J
: CIA-RDP81 R00560R000100010008-3