3

THE CONDON REPORT REVISITED

Caution should be exercised in accepting scientific belief as scientific data.

—MICHAEL SABOM, M.D.

The single most important document ever written about UFOs was the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, or, as it is better known, the Condon Report. This is stated in the same context that Time magazine selected Adolf Hitler as their Person of the Year in 1938, followed by Joseph Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. To be significant does not mean that their contributions were positive. In all of the examples cited, the choices were decidedly negative. The Condon Report was no exception.

The impact of this study, chaired by Dr. Edward U. Condon at the University of Colorado, has been both profound and widely misunderstood by skeptics and UFO devotees alike. The most fundamental issue that needs to be examined is, “What questions was the Condon study asked to address?” Contrary to popular belief, Condon was not asked to determine whether or not UFOs were real. Rather, there were two distinct issues involved. Like every study before this involving the U.S. Air Force, the primary question was, “Do UFOs constitute a threat to national security?” The second, and less emphatic, topic was whether or not science could be advanced significantly by studying UFOs.

Despite all of the problems associated with the Condon Report, it must be recognized that for the primary question—national security—Condon appears to have been right! In the more than forty years since the report was published, there have been no overt invasions by aliens from outer space—even though the subject has been a staple of Hollywood for the intervening decades.

For the convenience of any reader interested in the original sources, they are cited throughout this chapter, and the page numbers listed at the end of appropriate paragraphs. These pages refer to the book Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Since the use of common sense throughout this book is implored, it is highly recommended that you cross-reference the material for yourself.

Historical Perspective—No Threat

Many UFO buffs erroneously assume that since UFOs by definition fly, therefore the U.S. Air Force would have responsibility for the topic. This is not true. The Air Force is under the Department of Defense, which is tasked specifically with national security. This extremely important factor has been emphasized in every study or report. Therefore, it is worth examining the verbiage used in the tasking statements of several of these UFO reports. In short, what were they asked to do? This should help the reader to better understand what was really being requested when the contract for the Condon study was established and written.

Even before the U.S. Air Force came into existence and was formally recognized as a separate branch of service under the Department of Defense and came into existence, there was interest by their aviators in UFOs and concerns related to national security. The U.S. Air Force was officially formed on September 18, 1947, and one of the first topics raising concern was that of UFOs. There is a letter dated September 23, 1947, from General Nathan Twining that was still addressed to the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces. This letter is often cited in UFO studies and it is quite significant. In that letter he gives the official opinion for Air Materiel Command that “Flying Discs”—as they then were called—were “something real and not visionary or fictitious.” After outlining what had been observed and reported regarding the flying discs, General Twining went on to explain issues that required consideration. His first thought was “the possibility that these objects are of domestic origin—the product of some high security project not known to AC/AS-2 or this Command.” He next addressed “The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits” and “The possibility that some foreign nation has a form of propulsion possibly nuclear, which is outside our domestic knowledge” (pages 894–95).1

What General Twining stated is very important. Also significant is what does not appear in the letter—the ET possibility. The physical reality of UFOs is assumed. However, he begins the recurring theme that some other nation may have achieved a breakthrough in aviation technologies. While not explicitly identified in the letter, this could only be their concerns about the advances in technology by the Soviet Union. This period was, after all, the initial phase of the Cold War and trust of the USSR was at its nadir. Noteworthy is that every senior official I met with who was alive during that period addressed the same assumption; if it’s not ours, it must be Soviet. The prospect of a Soviet technology breakthrough would have been terrifying to those charged with our national security.

Also worth considering is that General Twining specifically addresses the lack of material evidence. Remember, this letter is dated only two months after the supposed Roswell incident and Twining’s name is often associated with that event. If Roswell were a real crashed UFO, it seems more likely that he would have just not mentioned the topic at all, rather than draw attention to it. That position can be debated, but the commonsense answer should prevail.

However, the general also raises a point that comes up time and time again. That is the supposition that some other organization in the United States has a secret program and has achieved a technological leap. When considering General Twining’s position as the head of Air Materiel Command, the probability that he would be kept out of the loop of a crashed UFO is vanishingly small. It is his AMC that owns all of the USAF aviation R & D capability. At that point in American history, the CIA was not in the aircraft business. Unless he suspected the U.S. Navy, with its own aviation units of involvement, the alternative organizations with advanced R & D capability are pretty few and far between. This thought points to another recurring theme: It’s always somebody else in the government that is responsible (but we don’t know who).

It is also important to note that the ET hypothesis is not mentioned at all in his letter. The absence of commentary concerning extraterrestrials is remarkable. If General Twining were aware of either crashed UFO material, or recovered alien bodies from the Roswell site, then a response to his superiors would certainly have included ETs as an alternative.

There Were Several UFO Studies Before Condon

Predicated on official interest, on December 30, 1947, Project Sign was established to collect, correlate, evaluate, and act on UFO-related information. The project was to examine, “all phenomena in the atmosphere which can be construed to be of concern to the national security.” This directive was sent to the commanding general at Wright Field, Ohio, for implementation. (Wright Field later became known as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.)

In February 1949 Project Grudge succeeded Project Sign. Officially it only lasted until December of that year. In the closing report it was recommended that future study of UFOs be reduced in scope. The conclusions noted, “There is no evidence that objects reported upon are the result of an advanced scientific foreign development; and, therefore they constitute no direct threat to national security” (page 509).

Project Blue Book, the U.S. Air Force official program to study UFOs, was reviewed in 1966. The Special Report of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project “Blue Book” concluded that “in nineteen years since the first UFO was sighted there has been no evidence that unidentified flying objects are a threat to our national security” (emphasis added; page 813).

In the tasking memorandum for Military Director, Scientific Advisory Board, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force noted that the study was, “In keeping with its air defense role, the Air Force has the responsibility for investigation of unidentified flying objects reported over the United States.” Please note it does not address UFOs in other parts of the world. While supportive of continued investigation, the memo stated, “To date, the Air Force has found that no evidence of the UFO reports reflects a threat to our national security” (emphasis added). The same memo did note that many sightings from veridical sources could not be explained (page 816).

Air Force Regulation No. 80-17 dated September 19, 1966, entitled, “Research and Development, Unidentified Flying Objects,” established the program to investigate reports and indicated compliance was mandatory. This again specifically was based on their role in air defense. The program objectives stated, “Air Force interest in UFOs is twofold: to determine if the UFO is a possible threat to the United States and to use the scientific data gained from the study of UFO reports” (emphasis added). The regulation goes on to note that most UFOs have a conventional explanation and “present no threat to our security.” It also addresses the possibility “that a foreign nation may develop vehicles of revolutionary configuration of propulsion” (page 820). The regulation does not include the possibility of extraterrestrial craft being involved.

The UFO topic continued to garner popular interest and in January 1953 the CIA convened a secret panel to review the topic. The Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, better known as the Robertson Panel, was comprised of several prominent scientists including Howard Robertson, Luis Alvarez, Thornton Page, and others. There had been some significant sightings, including a dramatic case over the nation’s capital and there was concern about how the public would respond to future cases. Specifically they were worried about mass hysteria. For a few days the panel reviewed cases and had briefings from the head of Project Blue Book. Also present was the later famed Dr. J. Allen Hynek.

Unfortunately the panel went far beyond benign observations in their report. Of course they addressed the threat issue and concluded, “That the evidence presented on Unidentified Flying Objects shows no indication that these phenomena constitute a direct physical threat to national security” (emphasis added). They went on to state, “We firmly believe that there is no residuum of cases which indicate phenomena which are attributable to foreign artifacts capable of hostile acts, and there is no evidence that the phenomena indicate a need for revision of current scientific concepts” (page 918).

However, the panel went on to suggest debunking UFO events so that the public would lose interest in the topic. Concerned about a strong psychological reaction, they advocated an educational program that would be carried out by the mass media and aimed at reducing the gullibility of the public. The panel members also expressed concern that an enemy (unnamed) might possibly use UFOs as a form of psychological warfare and that the reporting systems could be overloaded (page 915).

The Colorado Study—Damage Done

By 1968 the Air Force, as an institution, was quite tired of UFOs, and really wanted nothing to do with them. Despite the fact that periodic observations of remarkable events were made by some of their own personnel, the senior leadership just wanted to have the topic go away. There is a management adage that states an action passed is an action handled. This means, if you can get someone else to take responsibility, then you have accomplished your task. It is also well known that the one way to kill such a task is to study it to death. That usually means appearing to look busy but without doing anything concrete about the real problem. Thus the Air Force established the Condon study with the real objective of eliminating a residual pain in their ass.

It was necessary to have an external scientific body conduct the evaluation. That provided the illusion of independence and credibility. Internally the Air Force frequently had been following the advice of the Robertson Panel, and debunking cases whenever possible. The rationale for the Air Force position was quite simple—resources. Budgets are invariably a zero-sum game. If you have personnel working UFOs, then they are not doing something else. In this case they were not contributing to the Cold War effort, or supporting the war in Southeast Asia, which by this time was getting into full swing.

Condon was just what the doctor ordered—he had the outstanding scientific credentials and a mind-set that supported the outcomes desired by the Air Force. While many UFO supporters today think the study was easily assigned, the reality was that several institutions turned down the opportunity. The money, eventually increased to a little over $500,000, was deemed not worth the potential risk of damage to their institutional credibility. Fortunately for the Air Force, the University of Colorado was willing to step up to the plate.

The Condon Report Was Not All Bad

Ironically, parts of the Condon Report are pretty good. As with Project Blue Book, the investigators described cases that defied conventional explanations. While the majority of all UFO cases had prosaic answers, often misidentification of known artifacts, there always remained a core set of events with high credibility and high strangeness. The problem with the report is internal incongruence between the Conclusions and Recommendations, which were written by Condon himself, and the body of the study. While Condon never personally investigated any of the cases, he simply chose to ignore the analytical body of his own report written by his experts. The conclusions, like every study before this one, stated they did not find any indications of a defense hazard. He went on to affirm the prior positions taken in earlier studies stating, “We know of no reason to question the finding of the Air Force that the whole class of UFO reports so far does not pose a defense problem.” Obligingly he went on to recommend the termination of Project Blue Book, saying there was no need for a special organization to study UFOs.

But there was more damage to come. Condon took on the issue of possible scientific advancement and basically laid it asunder. He wrote, “Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive studies of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.” Addressing astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, he said they have “decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries” (emphasis added; pages 1–2). Further he noted they should turn their valuable attention and talents elsewhere.

Following the lead of the Robertson Panel, Condon also addressed education. He concluded that, “We feel that children are educationally harmed by absorbing unsound and erroneous material as if it were scientifically well founded. Such study is harmful not merely because of the erroneous nature of the material itself, but because such study retards the development of a critical faculty with regard to scientific evidence.” He went so far as to recommend that teachers should refrain from giving students credit for schoolwork based on UFO material (page 5).

There Was Dissention on the Panel

It is well known that there was dissention within the committee. Two of the members, Dr. David Saunders and Dr. Norman Levine, were fired for “incompetence.” However, the real reason had to do with a controversial memo written by Condon’s chief assistant, Robert Low, that thoroughly undercut the efficacy and scientific standing of the study.

Sometimes referred to as the “Trick Memo,” in part it stated: “The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.… One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing—the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFO’s.… If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message.”

Basically he told people to look busy, but since the outcome was already predetermined, they were really focused on deceiving the American people, thus providing the U.S. Air Force what they really wanted—out.

David Saunders went on to write his own book, UFOs? Yes! As a psychologist he had been brought into the study to prove that the people who saw UFOs were less than mentally stable and so their observations were unreliable. Previously he had worked extensively with the CIA and was well established in the field of psychology. Among his attributes was an understanding of group psychology and he had developed an instrument that measured how well groups interacted. He could also determine why groups were dysfunctional based on the internal variability of the participants. After testing a substantial number of people who had reported observing UFOs, he concluded that as a group they were more sane and balanced than any other group he had ever tested. This finding undermined one of the presuppositions of the study, which was that many of the people who reported UFOs were not mentally stable. Unfortunately the negative concepts that observers had psychological or drinking problems slipped into public consciousness. This had a dampening effect on high-quality UFO reporting. To address his findings, we had the good fortune of having David Saunders appear before one of the key science groups arranged for the ATP study.

Report Analysis

In evaluating the Condon Report, it was striking how the format of the study differed from most others. Fundamental to most scientific studies are the terms of reference or TOR. These are critical as they establish the boundaries of the study and are usually stated succinctly at the beginning of the report. Without well-constructed TORs, studies usually flounder, as happened with this study. Also missing is a traditional Executive Summary, which is designed to convey the essence of the report to extremely busy senior leaders. Essential to most study reports, these are one or two pages in length, even for the most complex of topics. Longer than that, and they won’t get read by decision makers. Instead, Condon opened with his personal conclusions and recommendations, using a “royal we” to convey the illusion of broad support for his statements. This is followed by a rambling forty-plus page summary, which would rarely be read by executives. This summary is either misleading, or points to serious intellectual limitations in the participants. He concludes by stating, “In our study we gave consideration to every possibility that we could think of for getting objective scientific data about the kind of thing that is the subject of UFO reports.” If this is true, why then did Condon disregard some of the most spectacular cases, ones that included multisensory data and high-quality witnesses? The best example is the evidence of the RB-47 electronic warfare aircraft case that lasted for about ninety minutes over three states and points to capabilities that cannot be duplicated today. There will be more on that case later as it leads to another, previously publicly unreported observation.

In the body of the report there are a number of cases that certainly support the notion that UFOs were real and interacting with national defense systems. At least two are listed as real UFOs. Here are a few examples, with the committee conclusions:

— A crew of a C-47 saw a UFO from above and below. They maneuvered for ten miles but could not shake it. The sighting was confirmed by ground radar. Observations include acceleration from 0 to 4000 MPH instantaneously and a right-angle turn at 600 MPH. Conclusion: Real UFO.

— Six witnesses, including two police officers, observed an aluminum-looking metal disc the size of an auto at a height of 50 feet above a school. Observation lasted 30 to 45 minutes. The UFO changed color and sped off. Conclusion: no explanation.

— A USAF pilot with “irreproachable background” took photos of a UFO as he flew toward the Rocky Mountains. Two photos showed domed object. Conclusion: Claim not supported.

— A nuclear physicist and two others saw a bright object below the clouds at 300 feet. The colors changed from red to brilliant orange and the UFO was so bright it washed out his headlights. He estimated power at 500 to 800 megawatts. Conclusion: Unknown but doubt the intensity.

— A farmer and one other photographed metal object about 20 to 30 feet in diameter. Object went from hover to high speed with rapid change in direction. The photos were not fakes. Conclusion: Extraordinary and all evidence fits.

— Three people observed a small shiny object dropped from larger UFO. It had trouble maneuvering and molten metal was seen dripping from UFO. Conclusion: Canadian Air Force says real. Impressive testimony.

— Two USAF guards report UFO near a missile base. Sighting confirmed by radar. Fighters scrambled but did not contact UFO. Conclusion: Not sufficient evidence.

Despite cases like these, Condon wrote conclusions that in effect said there was not scientific value in understanding rapid acceleration and high g-force maneuvering. The case listed last had a most interesting caveat. This report was made during what is known as the Northern Tier sightings. These were a large number of sightings across the northern American missile defense systems. The note stated the reason this report was made was that the guards were new and “most guards don’t report UFOs.” The implication was they were so common as to not attract the attention of the security patrols. Still, Condon did not think this was a defense matter.

There Were Immediate Rebuttals

While many of the UFO researchers of the time initially supported the Condon study, they quickly became disillusioned and realized where the report was headed. One of those was Dr. James McDonald, a highly qualified atmospheric physicist working at the University of Arizona, Tucson. McDonald had developed an interest in the topic and been involved in credible research concerning UFOs. There are erroneous reports published that McDonald was a member of the Condon Study. In fact, he attempted to gain a position on the study, but was denied.

McDonald was one of the first scientists to address the major flaws in the study. His analysis was reported in UFO circles as he was extremely critical of the incomplete scientific analysis of many UFO cases cited by Condon. He noted that the Condon study intentionally addressed cases that were relatively trivial, and often did not include the complete details. His article, “Science in Default: Twenty-one Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations,” appears as a chapter in UFO’s: A Scientific Debate, edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page. Addressing Condon, and prior efforts to debunk sightings, McDonald wrote, “Prior to my own investigations, I would never have imagined the widespread reluctance to report an unusual and seemingly inexplicable event; yet that reluctance, and the reluctance of scientists to pay serious attention to the phenomena in general, are quite general.” McDonald then went on to cite specific cases inadequately addressed in the Condon Report.

Another senior scientist with exemplary credentials, Dr. Peter Sturrock, an astrophysicist at Stanford University, attempted to publish a report rebuking the Condon Report.2 Sturrock obtained his doctorate from Cambridge University and by the time of the Condon study had already made a number of inventions, one of them being a microwave tube that operates on a principle subsequently named the “free-electron laser.” The point is that Sturrock was well established and not a scientist that could easily be ignored. Yet, that is exactly what happened. The details are described in his most recent book, A Tale of Two Sciences: Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist. In a chapter devoted to the Condon Report, Sturrock covers the in-depth analysis he conducted of Condon’s study, and his efforts to get them published.

Like McDonald, Sturrock noted the inadequate selection of cases and incomplete details provided. He indicated that although the case studies should have represented the heart of the report, they accounted for less than one quarter of the pages. He also noted that about half of the 900-plus page report had little or nothing to do with the topic of UFOs. Despite extensive detailed analysis and appropriate credentials, Sturrock was turned down by every mainstream scientific journal to which he applied. By establishing an organization devoted to studying anomalous phenomena, Sturrock did get his message across. His report, “An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project,” is available on the Web site of the Society for Scientific Exploration.3 As late as 2002, Sturrock attempted to enter a debate in Physics Today that contained laudatory remarks about “Condon’s thorough analysis of the UFO Problem.”

Therein lays a fundamental problem with the Condon Report that continues to this day. It was the conveyance through both mainstream media and scientific journals that the Condon study had completed an extensive scientific analysis of the data. They had not. Condon came to his conclusions before the study began, and proved to be disinterested in facts, even those contained in his own document. While there were prompt responses decrying the poor quality and incongruence of the report, they were drowned out by the more prominent establishment publications such as Nature.

As determined from various scientific briefings that I gave on UFOs, nearly all of the scientists who had not personally investigated the topic assumed that the Condon study was the final word. The most frequent response from those scientists was, “That’s already been done!” It is not uncommon for skeptics to point to the study and proclaim there is no evidence. They are really stating they have no idea what evidence might be available, and are not about to review any data. After all, Condon gave them a pass.

Along Comes Carl Sagan

Not surprisingly, Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, in their editors’ introduction to the book UFO’s: A Scientific Debate, reinforced this notion of thoroughness. The book followed shortly after the Condon Report. In it they called the report “one of the most detailed examinations of the subject ever performed.” They lamented that “young people are finding science increasingly less attractive” and stated, “We all agree that this drift is deplorable.” They go on to express concern that these same people have interest in “borderline subjects” including “UFOs, astrology, and the writings of Velikovsky.” The dignity and interest afforded UFOs had been brought about, they claimed, through “widespread newspaper and magazine coverage which reaches many more Americans.”

These comments sound very similar to the views expressed by Condon regarding restricting the UFO topic from education. They accurately portray the sentiments of Carl Sagan and are far different from the congenial public demeanor he wished to convey to the public. That fact was vividly revealed in a meeting at Cornell University in 1988. Since the annual meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) was held at the university where he worked, the courtesy of an invitation to speak was extended to Sagan. He accepted and gave one of the most amazing talks I have ever heard. In keeping with his veiled tendency toward scientific elitism, Sagan informed the audience that technical debate among highly educated people with proper training in critical thinking should be permissible. (For perspective on the SSE, consider that at that time full membership required a doctoral degree and experience in your respective field.) While we were properly anointed and could conduct critical analysis regarding anomalies, there was danger, he suggested, with public discourse on these topics. Discussions about phenomena including UFOs were, Sagan contended, undermining not only public understanding of science, but the foundations of democracy itself. If the great unwashed were exposed to these topics, educational chaos could follow. His comments, synthesized down to the most basic level would be, “Freedom of speech will be the downfall of democracy.”

Scientists and the Public Are At Odds—a Significant Problem for Science

This recurring theme that UFOs, and other reports of phenomena, constitute a threat to education is worthy of public concern. As has been shown in various studies, there is a vast chasm between the belief systems of those who identify themselves as scientists and the general public. The problem facing science is that a very substantial percentage of the population has had personal experiences, often at a significant emotional level, that run counter to the beliefs of science in general. The basic premise of many scientists regarding phenomena is: it can’t be true, therefore it isn’t. As previously indicated, surveys continue to show that about 7 to 10 percent of adults have experienced the sighting of what they believed was a UFO. Undoubtedly, many of those observations are misinterpretations of the event. However, when you have multisensory data, multiple credible witnesses, and close encounters that last for significant periods of time, or recur frequently, they should not be categorically denied—as is the norm.

A huge issue for science and scientists in gaining public acceptance is that they have been proven wrong on numerous occasions. One has but to have followed the conflicting changes to seemingly dogmatic strictures on what is dietetically good for you to understand the problem. In the introduction to his UFO book Sagan noted that, “Science has itself become a religion.” Its adherents certainly behave as if that is true. UFOs, and other phenomena, if proven to be real, constitute a serious threat to their psychological makeup as they contradict the very foundation of many scientists’ belief systems. They seem to ignore the fact that big changes in science usually come, not from incremental expansion of knowledge, but exploration of anomalies that seem to defy theoretical predictions or by accident. There is a litany of such inventions. Penicillin probably tops the list, but other unanticipated examples include vulcanized rubber, radioactivity, plastic, and Teflon. It may also surprise readers to know that Viagra was discovered accidentally as an unanticipated side effect when the researchers were attempting to make a new angina drug.

That same introduction indicated a “belief that the public understanding of science was at stake and the borders between scientific and nonscientific discussion need explicit delineation.” If they were worried that UFOs would upset the scientific applecart, they did not envision what science would do to issues like global warming or intelligent design.

It might astonish some people who have read Sagan’s book, UFO’s: A Scientific Debate, to know that it is actually quite good in parts. If nothing else it articulates the key differences in arguments between UFO proponents and opponents. In the book, the proponents discussed facts, while the opponents relied on emotion to stress their respective positions. Researchers such as Hynek and McDonald addressed specific cases and provided details. Opponents, such as Lester Grinspoon and Alan Persky, indicated that both UFO observers and interpreters exhibited unusual emotions and indicated the topic raised a fervor normally reserved for religion or politics. This is in obvious contradiction to what Saunders had found when conducting personal interviews with these same people.

Most of the readers will be familiar with Carl Sagan’s famous statement about billions and billions of stars and indicating that based purely on probabilities, intelligent life somewhere else in the universe cannot be ruled out. He also went on to state that there is not a bit of scientific evidence to support that we may have been visited. After listening to him speak and reading the book he reportedly edited, it seemed clear that Carl Sagan did not even read his own material. Certainly, some hard evidence was reported, even if it was not conclusive.

The Outcome

The negative impact of the Condon Report on the field of science cannot be overstated. Although it was clearly an inferior research effort, the wide support for the conclusions conveyed via both scientific and popular journals has dampened enthusiasm for further serious research projects. Anyone associated with UFO research is well aware of the paucity of funding and the potential for risk to their professional standing if they openly venture into the field. This continues to this day, and most of my senior scientist friends who are interested in obtaining quality data on the topic do so with an understanding of anonymity—and with good reason.

The risks include guilt by association. My personal examples include ad hominem attacks by both Scientific American and The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. John Horgan, addressing me and writing in the July 1994 issue of Scientific American stated, “His ‘interest’ in alien abductions and paranormal phenomena, about which most scientists are deeply skeptical, raise questions about his judgment and is therefore a legitimate part of the story.” In other words, Horgan was stating that if scientists did not go along with the herd, they don’t think clearly.

Similarly, in the September-October 1994 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Steven Aftergood wrote, “John Alexander is by all accounts a resourceful and imaginative individual. He would make a splendid character in a science fiction novel. But he probably shouldn’t be spending taxpayer money without adult supervision.” What is most significant about these statements is that the topic of the articles had nothing to do with phenomenology. Rather, the stories covered research efforts on nonlethal weapons as life-conserving alternatives on future battlefields. These authors were opposed to this effort and chose to attack me personally rather than address the real issues.

The bottom line for both observers of unusual events and UFO researchers is to acknowledge their vulnerability. The Condon legacy lives on and it is little wonder that people are reluctant to come forward—especially if they have something to lose.

Summary

The Condon Report is important to the study of UFOs for the lasting damage that it has done. Despite considerable evidence that the study was not scientifically sound, it is the perception that it was that has lived on for more than four decades. It is also important to remember that the main question to Condon was whether or not UFOs constituted a threat. His assertion that they were not seems to have been substantiated. However, his commentary about what science might learn from the study of the phenomena and claims that even considering the topic was detrimental to American education were far off the mark. The bottom line was that the report accomplished its mission; it allowed the U.S. Air Force to drop their requirements to investigate UFOs.