Donald Keyhoe and the Condon Report

This is the cover of the paperback edition of the Condon Report.

The final book by Major Donald E. Keyhoe (USMC Ret.) Aliens from Space (1973) includes a description of the circumstances involved in what became known as the Condon Report, the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (1968) commissioned by the Air Force at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

As reported in chapter 8 of Aliens from Space, the Colorado University study was announced on October 7, 1966.  The project administrator was Robert J. Low.

Naming Dr. Edward Condon as the CU Project director, the AF declared that he would conduct a serious, objective, scientific investigation.

Within twenty-four hours Dr. Condon brushed aside this reassuring picture and revealed himself as a tough-minded disbeliever in UFOs.

"It is highly improbable they exist," he was quoted in the New York Times and scores of other papers.  "The view that UFOs are hallucinatory will be a subject of our investigation, to discover what it is that makes people imagine they see things."

Just four days before this, Dr. Condon had promised an impartial, careful study.  The pledge was written into the AF contract he signed, along with two high CU officials:

The work will be conducted under conditions of the strictest objectivity by investigators who, as carefully as can be determined, have no predilections or preconceived positions on the UFO question.  This is essential if the public, the Congress, the Executive and the scientific community are to have confidence in the study.

On October 9, Dr. Condon told the Denver Post he thought the AF had been doing a good job.  "About 95% of the UFO reports are relatively easily identified.  With more information, others could probably be explained . . . [which] indicates an appalling lack of public understanding."


Before this, Dr.  Condon and Low had asked for NICAP's evidence and our help in their investigations.  An independent inquiry seemed impossible after the long AF secrecy and debunking.  But if we refused we would be accused of not having any real evidence to submit.  I told Condon and Low we would assist them—if they made a full-scale investigation, free of AF interference.  Both assured me this was their definite purpose.

When Keyhoe called Condon to discuss his press statements, Condon complained about having been misquoted.  Despite finding the claim hard to accept, Keyhoe agreed to attend a conference at Boulder, "hoping to get the true picture of this AF-financed operation."  

He recalled, "When the conference ended I still had strong doubts about the project, but I told Low we would train their field men and help toward an objective evaluation."  There were further negative statements by Condon and when a project member told Keyhoe that the project heads had ordered a search for "negative evidence," Condon and Low were immediately notified that no further NICAP UFO reports would be shared.  There was an ensuing meeting at NICAP between Low, the project's new Assistant Director Gordon Lore, and Keyhoe.

At the start, I told Low we had already gone too far.

"We've had too many runarounds.  We won't consider going on unless you give us some straight answers."

"All right.  You're being frank—I'll try to be too."

"First, has Dr. Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?"  When Low shook his head, I added, "Does he ever intend to?"

"Not at present," said Low. 

"The only field trip we know about was after a contactee told Condon a UFO was going to land near an Air Force base.  Condon went there—why, I don't know."

"Those contactees fascinate him," Low explained.  "But you're right, he hasn't made any other field investigation.  And he has no plans for one.  I might as well tell you—if he had to make a conclusion now it would be negative."

Gordon Lore looked startled.  "Without even examining any of the evidence?"

Low nodded.  "He is honestly convinced there's nothing to it."

"Mr. Low," I said, "Dr. Condon sent you here to urge us to keep sending reports.  Exactly why—since he won't examine them?"

"Because we can be accused of reaching a conclusion without examining all of your evidence."

"The project will be accused of a lot more," I said a bit curtly, "if there's a negative verdict and you claim NICAP's evidence was examined."  Low started to break in but I stopped him, "Some of the Board members and advisers don't believe the project is on the level—"

"Wait a second," Low said quickly.  "I don't feel it's your job to find out if it's on the level or not.  Your job should be to submit your best evidence and try to change Dr. Condon's present disbelief."

For a second, Lore and I just looked at him, amazed.

"After all you've admitted about Condon?"  I demanded, "There's only one way you'll get us to resume—by Dr. Condon giving us a signed agreement to investigate certain selected cases, and that means a full check, interviewing the witnesses, and giving us copies of the evaluation.  We'll agree to keep them secret until the project ends and Condon's report is out."

On December 1, Condon and Low sent polite and complimentary letters to NICAP but offered no assurances.  Then senior CU psychologist David Saunders made an unexpected visit.  Keyhoe described a surprising disclosure.

He knew about Low's visit and the refusal letters.

"But before you do anything I want to tell you something.  First, take a look at this."  He handed me a photostat of a two-page memorandum signed by Low.  It was dated August 9, 1966, and addressed to CU officials E. James Archer, dean of the graduate school, and Thurston E. Manning, university vice-president.  Outlining some views of the proposed project, it stated:

In order to undertake such a project, one has to approach it objectively.  That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things (UFOs) exist.  It is not respectable to give serious consideration to such a possibility.  Believers, in other words, remain outcasts. . . . admitting such possibilities . . . puts us beyond the pale, and we would lose more in prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain by undertaking the investigation. . . .

Under the heading "Comments," Low made his proposal for handling the project if it were to be accepted:

Our study should be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers, who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations.  The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study, but to the scientific community would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.  One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of the physical phenomena, but rather the people who do the observing—the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs. . . .

Keyhoe confidentially told prominent UFOlogist Dr. James McDonald about the leaked memorandum.  McDonald proposed writing a letter to Low with a copy to Condon advising them about having obtained a copy of the memorandum.  Saunders and another project scientist who wanted a more thorough investigation, Dr. Norman Levine, agreed with McDonald that the letter should be sent.

On February 5, 1968, McDonald's fateful letter to Low arrived.  When Low and Condon read it they were furious.  As Saunders later told me, and stated in a book—UFOs?  Yes!—Condon harshly told him, "For an act like that [allowing McDonald to have the Low memo] you should be professionally ruined!"  Dr. Levine, Saunders said, was told his actions were "treacherous."  Both men were fired from the project the next day.

Keyhoe recounted the events surrounding the release of the Condon/Colorado University Report.

On October 31, 1968, the huge CU Project Report was delivered to the Air Force, and headquarters officers began a hurried review.

In the opening sections, Dr. Condon denied that UFOs were anything but illusions, failure to recognize ordinary objects, and fabricated reports.  Many witnesses, he declared, were inept, unduly excited or otherwise unreliable.  He also denied any threat to national security, any defense problem and any evidence of AF secrecy.  Since Condon's views as a UFO agnostic were fairly well known, these conclusions were no surprise to the AF officers.  The reviewers also assumed that the project members shared Condon's beliefs.  But when they got to the case analyses they had a shock.

Instead of solidly backing Condon, case after case showed strong evidence of UFO reality.  In nearly 30 per cent, scientist-analysts conceded that the objects sighted could not be explained with ordinary answers.  The high rating of the case witnesses was an added blow—most of the observers were astronauts, military and airline pilots, and other well-qualified specialists.


Sighting reports were still coming in when NAS returned the CU Report.  Braced for at least some criticism, AF censors were almost astonished by the verdict.

The NAS panel scientists unanimously accepted Dr. Condon's conclusions and praised the project for its "creditable" UFO study.  Fully agreeing with Condon, the panel said there was no evidence that UFOs were superior, unknown machines.  Most reports, it agreed, were mistakes—failure to recognize conventional causes.  There was no official secrecy, it stated, and no need for further UFO study.

For the scientists to have missed all the powerful UFO evidence and the damaging contradictions was impossible—if they actually read the full report.  Either they had read only Condon's two opening sections, or they had deliberately ignored everything disproving his conclusions.

Keyhoe explained that the report was released without a press conference, giving the newsmen time for only a hurried inspection before the scheduled release hour.

Once they had decided on these steamroller tactics, the AF PIOs waited a few more days, knowing the press corps would be busier as Inauguration Day approached.  On January 8, to pave the way, they released the NAS panel's verdict, stressing that this was a careful, serious review by the nation's top scientists.  After planting the panel's praise of Dr. Condon and the project study, the AF gave newsmen copies of the enormous report—for release the next day.

The effect was just what the PIOs had expected.  Faced with the impossible job of reading the huge document overnight, reporters and broadcasters begged for an AF press release summary.  Instead, PIOs tipped them off to the first two sections by Condon.  These, the AF men said, covered all the main points—everything they needed.


By the evening of January 9, AF Headquarters knew the steamroller had succeeded.  Combining Condon's conclusions with praise by the NAS, newspapers and networks told the nation that distinguished scientists had proved UFOs nonexistent.  Incredible as it may seem, not one of the glaring contradictions, the "hot" cases, was mentioned by the wire services or the networks.

Though Condon's report got the headlines, some sharp dissents went on record.  Congressman William Ryan attacked the conclusions on the floor of the House, urging an investigation of the project.  The American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics revealed a two-year objective, scientific investigation and rejected the CU Report.  At the same time, Dr. Hynek publicly denounced the project conclusions.  National columnist Roscoe Drummond urged a new, unbiased study, citing "too many unexplained UFOs."  The report was also criticized by scores of papers, among them the Detroit Free Press, the El Paso Times, the Knoxville Journal, the San Diego Tribune, the Dayton Daily News, and the Chattanooga Post.  The New York Daily News said the study "has been under fire from the start as allegedly rigged to bring in the verdict the Air Force wanted."

But none of the critics cited the "genuine UFO" conclusions or startling contradictions, since they had not had time to search through the 1,500-page report.  As a result, most of the press and networks paid little attention.

Within days, the initial publicity was followed by a 965-page paperback edition of the report.  Though the CU study had been financed by the taxpayers for a total of $523,000, the AF allowed Colorado University to publish a hard-cover copy and the Bantam paperback edition and keep the royalties.

The published editions presented an introduction by Walter Sullivan of the New York Times.

Belittling UFO witnesses, Sullivan said the CU Report proved the fallibility of airline pilots, radar operators and other "sober observers."


In the report itself, Condon first said most persons making UFO reports seemed to be normal, responsible individuals.  But this picture quickly changed.  Besides being inept, said Dr. Condon, some witnesses often compare notes and change their stories, perhaps unconsciously, until they agree.


Statements by some project scientists added to the ridicule of witnesses.  Eyewitness testimony was declared inherently unreliable.  Single-observer reports were mostly ruled out, with the implication that many witnesses could not be trusted without confirmation.  One project member suggested that some witnesses might be looking for fame, notoriety, attention or money.


As UFOs came back into the news, some of the press belatedly began checking the CU Report.  One I knew was a Washington TV commentator.  Halfway through, he told me he was amazed by the positive evidence ignored in the main conclusions.

"I see now why the AF rushed it through without giving us time to read it.  I think the whole AF investigation is phoney, and I'm going to put it up to the network to bust it wide open."

But two weeks later he told me higher-ups had vetoed it.

"They said we'd look like fools for backing the report without knowing what was in it.  And we'd set off a big row.  Not just with the AF—there are millions of people who don't want to believe that we're being watched by some race that's way ahead of us."

Paragraph biographies of many of the individuals mentioned in this article may be read at nicap.org.

This is the cover of the hardcover first edition of Aliens from Space.

Beyond 'Talking Poltergeists' and 'The Nine Pattern'

Twyla Eller snapped a photo of 'Michael' and me during my visit to Centrahoma in August 1995.

My longtime readers may remember that it was eighteen years ago, August 1995, when I went to rural Oklahoma to interview a family experiencing what had been reported to be a 'talking poltergeist' haunting.  The predominant manifesting entity was known as 'Michael' in a case encompassing some UFOlogy aspects.

This reflective article begins with considering a somewhat humorous instance of flying saucers and 'The Nine Pattern', keeping in mind previous blog articles when I reflected about aspects of human creativity and mentioned circumstances of the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" and of the popular song "Hotel California".

During the 1950s when Frank Scully, Donald E. Keyhoe, Truman Bethurum, Daniel Fry, Meade Layne, Orfeo Angelucci, Bryant and Helen Reeve, and others published books about flying saucers, the makers of many American movies considered the question of life on other worlds as entertainment, including:

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951

"The Thing" (1951)

"Invaders From Mars" (1953)

"The War of the World" (1953)

"Forbidden Planet" (1956)

"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956)

And then there was "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959) with Bela Lugosi.  The low-budget sci-fi movie was originally going to be entitled "Grave Robbers from Outer Space" and deals with a plan involving the resurrection of dead Earthlings by space people.

Directed and written by Edward D. Wood Jr., "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is sometimes promoted as one of the worst movies ever made yet this entertainment showed a wry sensibility devoid of any pretense of ambition toward achieving any semblance of dramatic pathos.

Ways to 'resurrect the dead'—or at least temporarily converse with humans who've made the transition to the ascended realm—may be found in the annals of transcendental communications.  Consider the work of Direct Voice mediums such as Leslie Flint and physical mediums such as Helen Duncan, both subjects of previous blog articles.  There are also the fields of Instrumental Transcommunication and the processes of 'channeling,' encompassing such aspects as trance mediumship, automatic writing and Ouija Board messages.  The transcendental communicators have often commented about the need to explain metaphysical truths in a metaphorical way due to the limited understanding of people on Earth.

As I mentioned in the article reviewing Yada Speaks (1979), Yada di Shi-ite (among a group of transcendental teachers known as 'The Inner Circle') spoke through the entranced Mark Probert to make a statement where masses of people were compared to "the living dead."  His meaning was that they were not awake to spiritual knowledge and thus when they "leave the physical structure in what is called death, [they] enter only what is called the low-level astral plane" rather than "the highest realms of being."

It is easy to understand the popularity of vampires, zombies and other monsters such as Frankenstein that provide examples of 'the living dead' for contemporary people seeking amusement.  For some individuals, movies and novels provide a brief distraction from the problems and uncertainties of everyday life.  However, considering individuals who have some knowledge of continuing life in the ascended state through reading esoteric metaphysical sources and reflecting about their own experiences — if they are like me they would not find it worthwhile to allocate time to such foolish diversions.  After all, there is so much to learn and only a limited amount of time to accomplish good deeds during our ephemeral Earth lives.

Those who have read my case study book Testament (1997) know that my spiritual awakening was extremely unusual.  I had read about a case involving "America's Talking Poltergeist" in a Fortean Times magazine article.  The ensuing events resulted with my 'resurrection' into a more spiritually conscious life.  I also became aware of synchronicity of certain words in paranormal case studies, including variations of the name 'Michael' and of the word 'bell.'

Another field for reflection in considering the perpetuity of existence would be cases suggesting individual physical reincarnation where physical resemblance and visions or memories of a previous life are a factor.  Two such cases have been profiled in other blog articles.  In some cases such as my own, an individual will learn about a pattern of life events from another epoch that shows parallels with the current lifetime.  On one occasion, I found an odd relic in an antique store in the vicinity of my home when I was living in the Echo Park district of Los Angeles.

The round silver 'pendant' displayed the countenance in profile of what appeared a rather grandiose ancient Egyptian who distinctly resembled me.  I learned that there was a period when Italy created replicas of Egyptian artifacts so the object described by some people as a medallion and by others as a coin seems to be one of these.

The antique store owner, Minnette, had traveled internationally to purchase antiques for her modest shop and I could only wonder about the origin of some of these items.  I recalled that among the press kits I had written as a Paramount publicist was one for "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."  I found an assortment of intriguing items at other local, comparatively inexpensive antique stores and also purchased remnants of a collection assembled at the Los Angeles Philosophical Research Society founded by Manley Hall.  Here are some of my finds.

My shopping mission to find lost antiquities and art treasures in local L.A. antique stores resulted from a theory that perhaps one way how Michael could prove His existence was by leading me to find lost art treasures through transmitted conscious thoughts.

Although I estimated the purchases could be evidence for skeptical or materialistically-oriented people, occasionally it would become dismaying that I was spending money in this manner when so many people throughout the world were starving to death.  I would sometimes have second thoughts about my decisions and choices.

One way of looking upon my life as chronicled in my books is that an evolution is shown from a corporate Hollywood publicist to a more spiritually aware person.  Earlier in my life, after high school my moviegoing pastime became related to career goals to some extent.  The movies I had admired—by such directors as Bergman, Fellini, Bunuel, Fassbinder and Goddard—were very different from commercial mainstream movies and I eventually realized the corrupting influence of the profit-driven corporate mentality.  The publishing industry also now seems too highly preoccupied with profit.

As a child, I saw the science fiction movies listed at the beginning of this article along with a multitude of all genres of films that were broadcast on TV or projected at the many local theatres in Pasadena, California.  The TV shows included "Superman," "The Outer Limits," "The Twilight Zone," "Lost In Space," "Star Trek," "The Munsters," "The Addams Family" (and just about everything else).  In fact, when I worked in the entertainment industry as a talent agent and then as a movie publicist I met an enormous quantity of TV and movie stars so the illusions of celebrity and glamour were eradicated in my younger years.  I began by being Mickey Rooney's 'assistant' in his talent agent's office, which resulted with me eventually becoming a franchised agent myself.  My job as publicist (staff writer), senior publicist and then a consultant to Paramount Pictures resulted after I helped my twin brother Mike (who then was Director of National Publicity) on some freelance assignments writing press kit production information for films that became big hits for the studio.

My goals upon accepting each of my entertainment industry jobs had been to develop connections for my original screenplays, including "Wonder of the World" based on my research into the life of Julia Pastrana; and an adaptation of Robert Silverberg's science fiction novel To Live Again.  Among the Paramount movies I helped publicize were the "The Addams Family," "Braveheart," "Fatal Attraction," "Forrest Gump," "Ghost," "The Godfather, Part III," "Scrooged," "Star Trek" movies, "U2 Rattle and Hum," and reissues of "1900" and "The Ten Commandments."  

My brother Mike still works in public relations and continues to watch TV and movies although he recently mentioned to me that it has been obvious for many years that there are fewer and fewer worthwhile movies being made.  Since Mike is a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, he receives through the mail DVDs for convenient viewing.  He and his partner earlier this year reached a settlement on their lawsuit against the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.  One of my previous articles considered being an identical twin: "Twin Telepathy by Guy Lyon Playfair".

Back in the 1980s and first half of the '90s, I couldn't understand how my screenplays had never been produced, considering the questionable interest level of most of what was being made; however, I would not be the same person that I am today if I had become a successful screenwriter.  Having been a cinema major at USC, I have devoted much time to contemplating the art form of film and one of my insights is that the moviegoing experience is mostly an activity involving hype.  The idea of a particular storyline is first promoted and interest is engendered as one's imagination is aroused.  The activity of eventually seeing the actual movie can never be as fulfilling as one's expectations.  As a publicist, I realized there were times when it seemed that more creativity went into publicizing a movie than could be found in the actual movies being promoted.  In 2013, moviegoers aren't needed by humanity; what is needed are spiritually aware benefactors.

After my 1995 interviews in Oklahoma, I returned home to Los Angeles and found the uncanny manifestations not only continuing but intensifying.  Due to the scope of the phenomena, I could only conclude that I was living my life in the Presence of an interacting Omnipresent Superconsciousness.  Previously, I had believed that circumstances relating to 'God' were beyond comprehension.  The expressions 'Christ Consciousness,' 'Oneness' and 'Holy Ghost' became recognizable as other ways of expressing (as I articulated in 2007) a "Spiritual Force that may be recognized through circumstances often described as coincidences and synchronicity, intuition and telepathy, prophetic dreams and visions, mediumship and trance channeling, healing, as well as events associated with such expressions as 'hauntings,' 'talking poltergeists' and 'electronic voice phenomena.'  This predicament might be articulated as all living things having a shared Subconscious Mind and 'Thought Conductor.'"

This photo was taken at the opening of a new Mickey Rooney franchise in 1980 with Ruth Webb just as I started working at her talent agency in the Hollywood Hills.  Below, in 1983 Ruth and I were photographed before attending the Academy Awards ceremony at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles.  Mickey was being honored with an honorary award.  Mickey's famous movie roles include Puck in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Andy Hardy, and Ding 'Dingy' Bell in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." 

Pen Pal Box

Life is so surreal right now-- my baby sister was born this Monday, and I just moved into my dorm room! I am officially a college student now!!!

My little sister and I are really close, and she was very worried about me being gone. She doesn't know how she'll be living in our room by herself! :)

I decided to ask her to be my penpal, and I made her a pen-pal box as a goodbye gift. It's a cheap wooden box from the clearance aisle at Michaels, and I simply decoupaged it with scrapbook paper, pages from destroyable books, and a really pretty Washi tape from JoAnn's. 

I meant to get her stamps and address labels, but forgot to do it in time. Oh, well! My mom can do that, right? :) I can't wait to start writing to her, and hopefully writing me letters will help her to become a more confident writer. She's getting a lot better at spelling and I'm trying to convince her to write letters on her own without any help.

Life is just so surreal... Are any of you lovely readers off to college this year? Are you as excited as I am? It's going to be an epic year!

Flying Saucers: Top Secret

The fourth UFOlogy book by Major Donald E. Keyhoe (USMC Ret.) is Flying Saucers: Top Secret (1960).  His first book on this subject The Flying Saucers Are Real had been published ten years earlier.  The books chronicle how the mysterious UFO events were delegated to military jurisdictions and provoked conflicting responses among officials about what information should be presented to the public.  A sequence of bureaucratic secrecy protocols was formulated.  The fact that these orders entailed lies would continuously undermine the top secret cover-up as new witnesses observed UFOs and realized the importance of this knowledge.

Since the publication of his previous book in 1955, Keyhoe had joined and eventually been made Director of National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP).   He wrote in the Foreword:

Publicly, the official attitude is still one of debunking the "saucers" and explaining away sightings—a policy made possibly by military secrecy orders.  But behind the scenes, a far different attitude exists, as shown by the evidence in this book.  Further proof, just received, is shown by the official instructions of the Air Force Inspector General to Operations and Training commands.  On December 24, 1959, under the heading, UFOS SERIOUS BUSINESS, the Inspector General gave these directions regarding UFO reports:

So far, there is no indication of any change in the official debunking policy.  It was this policy which led to creation of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena over three years ago.  A private organization, with members in the armed forces, Government agencies and many professions and trades, NICAP was created to learn the facts about UFOs and to make them public.

The first chapter provided more details about NICAP.  "In '56, NICAP had been organized as a private, nonprofit organization to determine the facts about UFOs.  By January of '59, its membership covered all forty-nine (now fifty) states and thirty foreign countries, excluding the USSR."  Keyhoe divulged that members constituted "important inside sources, in the armed forces and elsewhere.  Without violating security, they had given us leads to crucial UFO information kept from the press."  He commented, "But in spite of our efforts, and a mass of documented new evidence, the censorship had been tightened."

One ironic incident occurred after Keyhoe was censored while appearing on a network television UFO program (as detailed in a previous blog article).  In the show,  Keyhoe attempted to make some unscripted remarks and the audio track of his speech was made inaudible.  "Only minutes later, Air Force Assistant Secretary Richard E. Horner appeared before the cameras and flatly denied any censorship of the subject."  Then:

Less than twenty-four hours later, in an unguarded moment, the Air Force censorship was fully admitted by the PIO (Public Information Officer) at Langley Air Force Base.  Evidently unaware of Horner's broadcast, Captain Gregory H. Oldenburgh sent an official statement to NICAP member Larry W. Bryant, Warwick, Virginia:

The public dissemination of data on unidentified flying objects is contrary to Air Force policy and regulations . . . specifically, Air Force Regulation 200-2.

One case related in the book is known as 'The Killian Case', involving "a headlined airline sighting and a veteran airline captain who gamely stood up to the Air Force."  Keyhoe chronicled how eventually Killian was "silenced by the Air Force," as Mrs. Killian informed Kehoe.  The incident and following cover-up was also profiled in Keyhoe's following book Aliens From Space, including the following.

Though the other airline crews had confirmed Killian's report, his forthright statements had received the most publicity.  To debunk this serious case, the AF said Killian had merely seen stars through broken clouds.  The captain quickly knocked this down—the clouds had been under the plane and the sky was clear above it.  Switching answers, the AF said Killian had failed to recognize an aerial refueling operation.  Then to discredit him completely, a HQ spokesman hiding behind anonymity implied the captain was drunk.

Overnight, the ridicule spread to Killian's family.  Several people in their community started taunting his wife, and his children were mocked at school.  In a cold anger, Captain Killian went on the air and blasted the Air Force.

Within twenty-four hours the AF put the heat on American Airlines and Captain Killian was silenced.  In his fifteen years with American he had built up a spotless record.  But under AF pressure he was forbidden to defend himself in a broadcast, a press interview—or even in a discussion with friends.

After this vicious slander by the AF, some FAA officials began to rebel against Air Force control.  Apparently this feeling of guilt for not going to Killian's aid spread to top levels.  It was climaxed seven months later by the official release of the FAA logs at Redmond.  The AF's denunciation of the FAA intensified the agency's stubborn resistance, and on through the sixties it gave out several significant UFO reports the AF tried to conceal.

But the Pentagon's attempt to ruin Killian was a victory for the censors.  Most airline pilots stopped reporting UFO encounters, fearing they would get the same treatment.  Hundreds of dramatic and sometimes startling reports are still being withheld by these embittered pilots.

In another chapter of Flying Saucers: Top Secret, Keyhoe explained how he received faked AP wire stories in an incident involving a "trap" that could have resulted with NICAP officials appearing as if they were responsible for "making up the whole thing."

Incidents of the UFO sighting "flap" of 1957 included a landing at the north tip of the White Sands rocket-proving grounds (the vicinity of Daniel Fry's  first contact experience).  Keyhoe reported an additional sighting occurred the next day at a camp north of the proving ground.

The following passages provide an example of the frequently noticed backtracking among officials and military witnesses.  During the numerous sightings of November 1957, Keyhoe received a telephone call from Frank Edwards —

"Don, you won't believe this!  The Chief Air Force PIO at Los Angeles—Colonel Dean Hess—just revealed he's asked Secretary Douglas to open up with the truth about UFOs."

"That's amazing, if he really did."

"It's true, all right.  My source in L.A. just read me a press interview.  Colonel Hess says the Pentagon is greatly concerned, and it's plain he's worried, too.  He said he phoned the Secretary's office and asked for a thorough investigation.  Here's the hot part, quote: 'I have asked for a thorough investigation so the public may know the real nature of these objects.  I'm not going to be satisfied with one of these routine inquiries.  I am sure the American people would be receptive to information as to whether these objects are of terrestrial or celestial origin.'  Unquote."


. . . word came that Colonel Hess was to be interviewed on a Los Angeles television program.  Hoping for a real break, I waited for word from the Coast.  Then a Los Angeles member phoned the bad news to our office.

"Colonel Hess looked beaten—they must've given him hell.  All he did was recite the Air Force line."

In the following chapter, Keyhoe provided an account of a conversation that he had with Lou Corbin, news director of WFBR in Baltimore.  This excerpt recounts some of the usual outlandish explanations given by officials in response to UFO inquiries.  At the time of the conversation, Kehoe was working on a press release consisting of confidential reports of identified witnesses.  He was hopeful the joint statement could lead to a breakthrough in attempting to end the continuous ridicule of UFO witnesses

"Well, they've done it again!  Of all the idiotic explanations—"

"What are you talking about?"

"This new Air Force brush-off.  It just came over our wires.  They picked out five recent sightings and then tore them down.  They called the Stokes report a hoax inspired by the Levelland case.  Then they made fools out of the Coast Guardsmen—"

"How?"

"Said the Sebago radarmen got confused—mistook ordinary plane blips for a UFO."

"What about the men on deck who actually saw the thing?"

"Oh—they steered clear of that—didn't mention it."

"Lou, the Coast Guard will never stand for that."

"Unless they've been shut up.  And listen to this.  In the White Sands cases, they even changed the witnesses from MP's in jeeps to plane crews circling the area.  Then they say the UFOs these crews reported were only astronomical effects. . . ."

I looked down grimly at the press-release draft.  But the Air Force couldn't have known; it was only a bad luck coincidence.

"Hello," said Corbin.  "Are you still on?"

"Yes.  Go ahead."

"The Levelland explanation is the most outlandish of all.  The Air Force says that the huge UFO was, quote: 'A natural electrical phenomenon called ball lightning or St. Elmo's fire.'"

"But that's crazy—they're two entirely different things.  Ball lightning's never been reported over a few inches in diameter.  And St. Elmo's fire is a kind of static electricity that sometimes gathers around ships' masts and—"

News that the Senate Subcommitee on Investigations was considering open hearings brought Keyhoe in contact with subcommittee chief investigator Jack S. Healey.  At one of their meetings, Kehoe was able to tell him about an airline captain who eventually denied his previous detailed UFO reports.  The case presented what Keyhoe called a convincing "record of deception" suggesting that "someone with real power" had been able to "scare" the airline captain into lying to the Civil Aviation Committee.  A NICAP member had taped the television interview where the captain and first officer had provided a careful description of the incident.

Representative William H. Ayres divulged in a letter to NICAP member Melvin V. Knopp, West Ridgefield, Ohio:

Congressional investigations have been held, and are still being held on the problem of unidentified flying objects . . . Since most of the material presented to the Committees is classified, the hearings are never printed.  When conclusions are reached, they will be released if possible.

Keyhoe also mentioned an incident involving Senator Barry Goldwater.

After a daytime UFO sighting at Tucson, Arizona, the Air Force first stated no fighters were in the area.  Later, it had reversed itself, trying to explain the UFO as an unrecognized F-102 interceptor.  It was then that Arizona's Senator Barry Goldwater had publicly declared: "The flying saucers are real."  Adding his now well-publicized comment that the Air Force "clammed up" when asked about UFOs, Senator Goldwater also revealed that two former Air Force "buddies"—presently airline captains—had seen "saucers" flying alongside their planes.

A future event involving Goldwater was his attempt to gain access to enter restricted areas of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Among the UFO reports brought forward by NICAP members was one concerning four sightings by Baltimore astronomer Dr. James C. Bartlett, Jr. during his almost nightly observations of our solar system and distant stars; and one from a Lutheran minister and his wife that addressed the fear "that religion might be seriously affected if the UFOs were proved to be spaceships."

As far back as 1950 I had been told this was one reason for Air Force secrecy.  But the religious leaders on our Board—Dr. Douglass, Reverend Baller and Reverend LeVan—believed that only a small percentage of people would feel such an impact.  Apparently, most of our members agreed.  But we still pursued the question whenever the opportunity offered, as in this minister's report.

Reverend Hoffman was quoted: 

"I can accept the existence of other planets with intelligent beings.  Why should we question God's power to create other worlds in the Universe?"

Publicity about C. G. Jung's evaluation of UFOs prompted Keyhoe to write him a letter.  Jung's written response was quoted in the book —

Kusnacht-Zurich

Seestrass 228

16.8.58

Dear Major Keyhoe:

Thank you very much for your kind letter.  I have read all you have written concerning UFOs and I am a subscriber to the NICAP Bulletin.  I am grateful for all the courageous things you have done in elucidating the thorny problem of UFO reality. . . .

My special preoccupation does neither preclude the physical reality of the UFOs nor their extraterrestrial origin, nor the purposefulness of their behavior, etc.  But I do not possess sufficient evidence which would enable me to draw definite conclusions.  The evidence available to me however is convincing enough to arouse a fervent interest.  I follow with my greatest sympathy your exploits and your endeavors to establish the truth about the UFOs. . . . 

If it is true that the A.A.F. [American Air Force] or the government withholds tell-taling facts, then one can only say that this is the most unpsychological and stupid policy one could invent.  Nothing helps rumors and panics more than ignorance.  It is self-evident that the public ought to be told the truth, because ultimately it will nevertheless come to the daylight.  There can hardly be any greater shock than the H-bomb and yet anybody knows of it without fainting.

I remain, dear Major,

Yours       

(signed)   C. G. Jung

A spiritual truth never directly addressed by Donald Keyhoe in his books is the immorality of dishonesty.  People holding any manner of position of authority are behaving immorally if they think there is any justification to lie or participate in a cover-up.  Abuses of 'power' are due to an incorrect understanding of what constitutes power.  A discernible teaching throughout the world's spiritual wisdom traditions is that wrongdoing will have unfavorable consequences not only for one's Earth life but also for the eventual existence in the ascended state of being.  If any exercise of power, influence or authority has a negative result then the perceived 'power' is a misconception.

Litterman on carbon finance

I just read a very nice article by Bob Litterman in CATO's "Regulation" on the finance of carbon taxes. It includes a review of some of the recent academic calculations.

(Related, Ronald Bailey at Reason.com takes on the Administration's latest cost of carbon estimates, and reviews Robert Pindyk's recent NBER working paper "What do the models tell us?" also covered by Bob.)

Like just about every economist, Bob favors a carbon tax or tradeable emissions right over the vast network of regulatory controls on which we are now embarked. I might add that getting rid of the large subsidies for carbon emissions implicit in many country's policies would help before we start taxing.

But let's get to business, how big should the carbon tax be?


It's a hard question. The economic costs of warming are hard to assess. Moreover, they come in a century or more, when presumably our descendants are much wealthier than we are, and hopefully have technologies we have not imagined. Or civilization will have collapsed so they have a lot more pressing problems. How do we trade off costs now and uncertain benefits in a century?  What discount rate should we use?

Bob has good points on this question that I hadn't thought of, and are good applications of finance thinking (as you'd expect from Bob) which is sort of my excuse for covering it here.

Carbon beta

First, climate costs are likely to have a strong negative beta, and thus climate investments have a large positive beta.

Here's the thinking. The rate of economic growth over the next century is a major uncertainty. Will the historically unprecedented growth of the post WWII era continue, say 2% real per capita? Or does our current scleroscis settle us into 1% growth? Or are the end-of-growth prognosticators right? When you compound over a century, these add up to truly major uncertainties over how wealthy our descendants will in fact be.

But they also add up to truly major uncertainties over how much carbon we will emit in the meantime. If growth stops, carbon emissions stop too. Yes, it's not one for one (a perfect correlation). Technology choice matters; everything from windmills to deregulated nuclear power to driverless cars and trucks makes a difference. But there is a strong positive correlation.

So, if carbon is a bigger problem, our descendants are more likely to have lots of money, technology, and resources to deal with it. If they are poorer, then carbon is likely to be a lesser problem. In finance language, projects with a strong positive beta require a much higher expected return, and a high equity-like discount rate. This consideration drives us to tax less now.

Catastrophes

But, Bob goes on, how do you price catastrophe risk? Though the central tendency of the present value of economic costs of carbon emissions are surprisingly low -- even moving all of Florida up to the Georgia border is only money after all, and you have a century to do it -- there is a chance that things are much worse.

We're all thinking about "black swans" and "tail risk" these days. Shouldn't we pay a bit more carbon tax now, though the best guess is that it's not a worthwhile investment, as insurance against such tail risks?

The problem is,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Robert Pindyck... argues that too many non-GHG-related low-probability, high-damage scenarios exist. He writes, “Readers can use their imaginations to come up with their own examples, but a few that come to my mind include a nuclear or biological terrorist attack (far worse than 9/11), a highly contagious ‘mega-virus’ that spreads uncontrollably, or an environmental catastrophe unrelated to GHG emissions and climate change.” He concludes that society cannot afford to respond strongly to all those threats.

Indeed. (Fun for commenters: come up with more. Asteroid impact. Banking system collapse. Massive crop failure from virus or bacteria. Antibiotic resistsance....) If we treat all threats this way, we spend 10 times GDP.

It's a interesting case of framing bias. If you worry only about climate, it seems sensible to pay a pretty stiff price to avoid a small uncertain catastrophe. But if you worry about small uncertain catastrophes, you spend all you have and more, and it's not clear that climate is the highest on the list.

This thought fits nicely into the modern research on "ambiguity" and "robust control" (for example see Lars Hansen and Tom Sargent's webpages for a portal). This line of thought often argues that you should pay a lot of attention to unlikely catastrophes, especially when it's hard to quantify their risks. And Pindyck's point (as I see it) gets to the central problem with that line of thought: you have to draw an arbitrary circle about which unlikely events you pay a lot of attention to, and which ones you pay no attention to.

If you worry about anvils falling from the sky, maybe you miss the piano falling from the sky. And if you worry about anvils, pianos, dynamite, and so on,  you just don't get out of bed in the morning.

It's also related to the tendency people have, in Kahneman and Tversky's famous analysis, to overweight some small probability events -- nuclear reactors, airplane crashes, terrorism -- and to ignore others -- coal dust, cab crashes on the way to the airport.

The same observation: One of my skepticisims of the current almost exclusive focus on carbon and global warming in the environmental community is that we may miss the real environmental problems. Most of the world breathes awful air and drinks awful water. Climate change is not even on their list of environmental problems. And the environmental effects of social or economic collapse or another war might dwarf warming.

All in all, I'm not convinced our political system is ready to do a very good job of prioritizing outsize expenditures on small ambiguous-probability events.

Alternative investments

Once we reduce things to money, which is what economists do, a bunch of unconventional and unsettling analysis opens up. (This isn't in Bob's piece, mea culpa only.) The economic case for cutting carbon emissions now is that by paying a bit now, we will make our descendants better off in 100 years.

Once stated this way, carbon taxes are just an investment. But is investing in carbon reduction the most profitable way to transfer wealth to our descendants?  Instead of spending say $1 trillion in carbon abatement costs, why don't we invest $1 trillion in stocks? If the 100 year rate of return on stocks is higher than the 100 year rate of return on carbon abatement -- likely -- they come out better off. With a gazillion dollars or so, they can rebuild Manhattan on higher ground. They can afford whatever carbon capture or geoengineering technology crops up to clean up our messes.

Put that way, though, the first question might be why we are leaving our descendants with $18 trillion of Federal debt, and a bill for $70 trillion or so of unfunded liabilities. Once we reduce the question to investment now to benefit the economic well-being of our descendants, it's not at all clear that investing in carbon reductions is the best place to put our money.

The greatest thing we can invest in for the economic well being of our 100 year descendants is strong, decades-long  economic growth. Needless to say, the overall economic policy mix and especially the environmental policy mix is not pointing in that direction. A lot of environmental policy actively discourages growth.

Nonlinearities

Bob points out one good case against this analysis. It is possible that carbon abatement is a very special investment with very special state-contingent rate of return.

There is a very small chance that climate effects may not just reduce subsequent growth, but may cause it to plummet catastrophically. Such scenarios require positive feedbacks; for example, warmer temperatures cause the release of methane from the currently permanently frozen tundra, triggering catastrophic warming impacts beyond the ability of future generations to adapt. How should society today rationally price the possibility of such unknown, very-low-probability outcomes in the future?

In my investment context, reducing carbon emissions now has a very special property that alternative ways of investing money don't have -- it turns off this low probability but huge negative-return scenario.

That's a good point -- but it means the entire case for a strong carbon tax now relies on how likely such extreme nonlinearity is.

Economics after all? 

I suspect this sort of analysis will be profoundly unsettling -- how about infuriating -- to people who worry about carbon and other greenhouse gases. It's not just about money, I suspect they might say, it's not about giving our descendants wealth; it's about giving them a healthy planet. The economist might say, so what's that worth to you? Some finite number, no? Sure, we inundate Florida, but our descendants are $100 trillion richer, so they can afford to rebuild Florida on higher ground. Problem solved with $90 trillion extra in the bank. Somehow I doubt Greenpeace will go back to saving whales even if that argument were decisively proved.

As much of a died-in-the wool economist as I am, I have to admit some sympathy. (Or maybe "ambiguity?") Consider species extinction. Our short time on Earth coincides with a greater mass extinction than the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs. And the extinction rate is not abating.

Now, I can't point to an economic cost, and people who hold up development projects to save some small species have a hard time doing the same. The best arguments I have read (admittedly not an expert) is of the sort that there might be some snake in the rain forest has a medically useful venom. More generally, "biodiversity is good." These is again, the  small probability of huge but unquantifiable benefit option-value argument.

Really, is that the best we can do when staring at the K-T boundary, and realizing that future alien geologists will see a more dramatic layer, with far more interesting chemistry, where we lived? The feeling nags that it can't be a good thing for us to move on from the dinosaurs to see if we can beat the Permian-Triassic extinction in the spectacular-geology department. (Global warming is a is a tiny component of extinction -- we got megafauna with spears.) I welcome suggestions on how to voice this view in economic terms.

Perhaps systematically worrying about small and unquantifiable probability events isn't such a bad thing. But paying attention to vague unquantifiable worries leads to a lot of stupidity, like banning genetically modified crops.

Back to carbon taxes

With all that in mind, where do I stand on carbon taxes? Usually, when something is this muddy, it means we're asking the wrong question, and I think that's the case here.

I think we're way too focused on the amount of the tax and way too unfocused on its operation.

I think we should be talking about a carbon tax in place of  all the rest of our rather calamitous energy policy. Subsidies for windmills, for rich people to buy Tesla cars, HOV lanes, fuel economy standards, subsidies for photovoltaic roofs, tax credit for energy efficient appliances, certified buildings, ethanol, high speed trains, low speed trains, and on and on. Throw out the whole department of energy, the EPA's ability to regulate climate emissions, and every other nagging energy regulation, and give us a carbon tax instead (and real-time tolling to eliminate congestion). Set the level of the carbon tax at the cost of all this other junk, and achieve better results at a fraction of the cost.

The first-order issue is the monstrous inefficiency and increasing corruption of our energy regulation. Get the clean carbon-tax system in place, then we can talk about the level of the tax. In that world, a tax rate twice or even three times too high will have much fewer distortions than what we have now, and will produce both better growth and a cleaner environment.

Alas, as with the consumption tax and any other perfectly obvious policy, we can't seem to trust that the deal will be kept.

Donald Keyhoe and Contactees

In his 1955 book The Flying Saucer Conspiracy, Major Donald E. Keyhoe (USMC Ret.) professed his unwillingness to consider the testimonial of so-called flying saucer 'contactee' Daniel Fry, the subject of several previous blog articles.  Keyhoe referred to Fry when he commented in 1954 that a period of media speculation about Mars "had raised serious questions when a humorous 'space man' story gave the Air Force a break."  He wrote further:

According to the author, he had seen a saucer land at a remote spot in New Mexico.  As he cautiously walked toward it, a voice came out of nowhere.

"Don't touch the hull, pal, it's still hot."

Guided by the unseen voice, the author said, he had gone aboard and been whisked to New York and back at 8000 miles an hour.  During this time the operation of the saucer was explained to him by the unseen space man—who said he was talking by remote control from a mother ship outside our atmosphere.

Reading this fantastic story, I thought of all the hidden official UFO reports—serious accounts by veteran Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots who had met these mysterious ships.  For months now every effort had been made to hide these serious reports or to ridicule the pilots when the stories broke.  But here on the front page of a national newspaper was this far more incredible tale, its author treated much less rudely than some veteran airmen who had reported encountering saucers.

Keyhoe's perspective of the 'contactee' cases was delineated in the preceding chapter of the book.

My talk that night was given before a church group in Larchmont.  Because of the religious aspects of the saucer problem, I had been a little uneasy.  But no one in the audience seemed concerned at the thought of other inhabited worlds.  However, several of the audience later asked me about the published claims of contacts with space men.  By this time there were several of these incredible stories in print, none with a shred of acceptable evidence.  In my opinion they were hoaxes, delusions, or stupid practical jokes—and I told this to the audience.

Later I discussed this with John Du Barry,  personal friend whom I met after the talk.  Du Barry, a former True editor, had helped me with my first UFO investigation.

"I don't say there haven't been contacts," I explained.  "The Air Force may have secret records of communications or even landings—but I'd have to see proof to believe it."

Du Barry nodded.  "So would I.  As to these stories, I think they're mostly cheap fakes.  Some of them have already been exposed."

"It's an easy formula.  Anybody can claim he has met a space man at some secluded spot, or even ridden in a space ship.  If he picks a time when nobody can prove where he was, no one can call him a liar."

"What troubles me," said Du Barry, "is the number of people who accept such faked stories.  I've talked with a number of them—intelligent people, some of them successful in business—and they really believe it.  At least I can see they want to—"

"That's just it, John, they want to believe it.  I talked to the doctors and staff of Waterbury Hospital at their annual banquet in February.  And a psychiatrist there gave me his explanation.  He said all these 'contact' books describe kindly space people, beings like ourselves, who come from wonderful worlds where there are no wars, no struggles for existence.  They have all the answers—the keys to a perfect life.  No diseases, no hard work, just an ideal existence, lasting for hundreds of years."

"I get it," said Du Barry.  "What these books are offering is an escape from all the troubles here—the H-bomb threat, financial problems, sickness, and so on.  I can see how people would seize on it and hope the UFO race will save them.  But it's a cruel hoax."

"Of course, it could happen that way.  But it would be worse than a cruel hoax if they turned out to be dangerous creatures."

As one example of 'proof' of his experiences, Daniel Fry had a 1954 photograph of a flying saucer that was published in Bryant and Helen Reeve's autobiographical Flying Saucer Pilgrimage (1957).  The circumstances of the photograph was presented in the blog article "Bryant and Helen Reeve's Commentary about Daniel Fry.  I also commented about the resemblance of the photo with photos presented in books by Arthur Shuttlewood in the article "More UFOs Over Warminster". 

The following excerpt from Fry's first published account of his case The White Sands Incident (1954)—presenting some of the remembered conversation with the unseen operator, 'Alan,' of the flying saucer—shows the unconventional aspect of Alan's answers to Fry's questions.  This is Alan's response when Fry asked, "Why pick me?  Just because by the merest accident I happened to be here when you landed.  I could easily put you in touch with any one of dozens of men right here at the base, who are far more advanced than I in science."  Fry had found his room "unbearably hot and stuffy" and decided to take a walk.

"When you say that you happen to be here by the merest accident, you greatly underestimate us," was the reply.  "The brains of many Earth men transmit readily, but you are one of the very few whose brain also receives well.  If you inquire when you return to your quarters, you will discover that the air conditioning  system did not break down tonight; although it has frequently done so in the past."

Previous blog articles about Fry include "Daniel Fry's First Contact Experience" and "Beyond The White Sands Incident". 

Contactee Truman Bethurum interacted with 'Captain Aura Rhanes' and her male crew members of a flying saucer from the planet 'Clarion' as documented in Aboard a Flying Saucer (1954).  Aura's commentary quoted by Bethurum included a declaration that a time could come for Earth people "when all planetarians may mingle, visit and stay, as some of them do now."  In another conversation, Aura expressed the cautious attitude of the people from ‘Clarion’ toward Earth inhabitants: " . . . you know what crowds are like when they see and hear things they do not understand.  Fear makes them do strange and evil things . . ."  I noted the similarity between Captain Aura Rhanes and Arthur Shuttlewood's 'Queen Traellison' in my review of The Warminster Mystery (1967).  Previous blog articles about Bethurum include "The Letters from Aboard a Flying Saucer" and "MP3 Audio: Truman Bethurum 1954 Radio Interview".

Another flying saucer contactee who has been the subject of previous blog articles is Orfeo Angelucci, author of The Secret of the Saucers (1955) and Son of the Sun (1959).  In a latter portion of his initial account of his experiences in the self-published 1953 newspaper-style Twentieth Century Times, Angelucci recounted some incidences that had been until then "omitted because they may be considered as completely impossible."  Here is the excerpt —

One of these concerns the coin-like piece of "metal" on the floor of the craft as he [Angelucci] sat there.  This object was about the size of a silver dollar, and Orfeo knew it was meant for him to pick up, perhaps as a memento.  The object seemed warm in his hand, and it felt active and "alive."  It gradually diminished in size, and completely disappeared before he reached the ground again.

Another phenomenon was his "singing" while at work.  It was not unusual to those who heard him.  But on this particular instance it was totally involuntary, induced by some outside force.  He merely kept to a corner, behaving as though he were singing.  A song which he had never known before.

There was still another, occurring after he had decided to include these in postscript, and after the contact had been broken.

It was on the morning of October 16, 1952.  At 4:30 he was awakened by a shrill humming, and high frequency vibrations which seemed to emerge from the metal bed springs themselves, and from the ceiling, so that he felt sandwiched in between two poles.  This remained perfectly constant for twenty minutes, and was accompanied by a high frequency earth tremor.  Both his wife and a neighbor young lady were aroused by this episode.

Angelucci indicated that he equated the sound with "the 'flying discs' motion . . . It was terrific beyond description."  Seven previous blog articles have presented information about the case of Orfeo Angelucci including "Orfeo Angelucci's Strange Predicament" and "Bryant and Helen Reeve's Commentary about Orfeo Angelucci".  I commented in the article "More UFOs Over Warminster (Part 2)" about the correlation between an incident reported by Arthur Shuttlewood with similar occurrences chronicled by Angelucci. 

Donald Keyhoe's opinions of contactees were further elaborated with an incident recounted in his fourth UFOlogy book Flying Saucers: Top Secret (1960) that occurred after he became Director of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena.  The letter 'A' in this excerpt represents George Adamski.  In the book 'Henry Brennard' was the name used to indicate a Washington, D.C. news correspondent.

About 10:30, Brennard called me at home.

"Have you gone nuts—taking in that guy A------?"  He named a "contactee" widely known for fantastic claims, including tales of flights with Venusian spacemen.

"What are you talking about?" I demanded.  "He's not in NICAP."

"Well, he flashed a membership card on a TV show in Los Angeles."

"What?"

"He claims you sent it personally—made him an honorary member."

"Henry, that's the first I ever heard of this.  He must have a fake card."

"The Air Force captain who told me says it's real.  One of their PIO's in Los Angeles saw the program.  The close-up showed a regular NICAP card, with your printed signature."  Brennard hesitated.  "Could anybody in your office have sent it without letting you know?"

"No, that's imposs—" I stopped short.  "I can't believe it, but I'll find out in a hurry."

"You'd better work fast.  This is a big break for the Air Force censors.  They can use it to kill off NICAP."

I fired a telegram to the contactee, denying he was a NICAP member and warning him not to repeat the claim.  Then early next morning I hurried into the office.  When I checked the membership files I had a double shock.

Not only was A------ listed as an honorary member, but six other widely known contactees!

In the uproar that followed, one employee resigned after revealing a disagreement with NICAP's policy about contactees.  But this did not reduce the danger of a ruinous press story.

Keyhoe observed that most of the claims seemed ridiculous: "tales of marrying Venusian women, visits to Mars, Venus, Saturn and the moon.  Some stories were obvious frauds, others unfortunate delusions."  Keyhoe worried that publication of a story implying NICAP acceptance of contactee claims could result in a loss of congressional support and alienate the public as well as many NICAP members.  Telegrams were sent to the contactees, voiding their membership cards.  An article about these events was published in the NICAP August-September 1958 newsletter The U.F.O. Investigator Vol. 1, No. 5.

More information about this event is found in “The Quest For The Truth About UFOs: A Personal Perspective On The Role Of NICAP” (1994) by Richard H. Hall.  In response, Daniel Fry sent a letter to NICAP in 1957 and published the letter in his newsletter Understanding.  Many details may be read in a danielfry.com article, including a NICAP statement reporting that Fry had provided the organization with a copy of a letter "from Mrs. Rose Hackett Campbell, former NICAP office secretary, in which she told Fry he was a 'founding member.'"

One of the contactees to receive a NICAP telegram was Reinholdt Schmidt.  I previously wrote in the blog article "Aftermath" about contradictions found in Schmidt's accounts of his case.  Information provided in Flying Saucers: Top Secret gave me a better understanding of the period when Schmidt received national media publicity as a self-professed contactee.

The great "flap" of 1957 began on November 2.

For days, all over the globe, UFOs by the hundreds descended into our atmosphere, several coming close to the earth.  Within forty-eight hours the censorship wall was breached, as dramatic reports by trained observers hit the front pages.  In the fight to regain control, some Air Force officials even repudiated their own men.  And still the reports poured in.

On November 5, Keyhoe received a telephone call from a Kearney, Nebraska radio announcer, who informed him about an incident involving Reinholdt Schmidt that had been said to have occurred a few hours earlier.  The radio announcer asked for Keyhoe's opinion on behalf of NICAP.

I had a sinking feeling, knowing what this story could do.  Of course, meeting a space crew wasn't impossible; we knew there had been brief landings.  But all of the "contact" claims we'd examined—tales of long talks with spacemen, being flown to the moon, Mars, Venus or Saturn—appeared to be dreams, delusions or frauds.


"We'd have to question Schmidt and examine the area before we could answer that.  But please put this in your broadcast: So far, NICAP hasn't found proof of a single 'contact' claim."

If the Kearney announcer could have seen ahead, Schmidt's story probably would have died that night.  Months later, Schmidt publicly claimed four new contacts.  Once, he said, he was taken aboard a spaceship—with his car—for a trip to the North Pole.  Before returning him to California, he reported, the spaceship descended and traveled for miles under the arctic ice.

But Schmidt's first claim was less fantastic, and by next morning it was on the front pages.  Then it was discovered he had a prison record, and Kearney authorities locked him up for a mental test.

Publication dates for Schmidt's brief books are listed as 1958 for The Kearney Incident: Up to Now, a 30-page book published by Spacecraft Research Association, and 1963 for My Contact with the Space People: The Reinhold Schmidt Story; a True Account of Experiences with People of Another Planet (1963); republished in 1990 as Edge of Tomorrow (also the title of a movie adapted from Schmidt's accounts).  Schmidt wrote that two weeks of testing at a mental hospital occurred following the initial "special news flash" and his local radio and television interviews, about which he stated: "These programs were also released on national radio and TV networks."  It is hard to imagine how this came about without any preliminary investigation by media staff, motivating my estimation of his case being a bizarre example of disinformation.  Schmidt reported, "The crowds of curious and interested people who flocked to Kearney caused a traffic jam for blocks around the police station.  Inside there was 'standing room only.'"

Here are two photos from Schmidt's book.  "Mr. Schmidt has been interviewed many times.  One of his latest interrogations was before the movie cameras in Hollywood."

"From left to right: Reinhold O. Schmidt, three crew members, and 'Mr. X,' the captain or leader of the crew.  All of the space craft crew members are played by professional actors in the motion picture 'Edge of Tomorrow.'"

Considering some of the events chronicled in Keyhoe's books, it is easy to suppose that propaganda tactics implemented by government officials might have included the exploitation of false contactees.  This was alleged by John Keel to be the case with contactee Howard Menger as Keel wrote in his 1970 book UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse:

. . . in letters to Gray Barker and Saucer News editor Jim Moseley, Menger termed his book "fiction-fact" and implied that the Pentagon had given him the films and asked him to participate in an experiment to test the public's reaction to extraterrestrial contact.

He has helped us, therefore, to dismiss his entire story as not only a hoax, but a hoax perpetrated by the U.S. government!

Beyond factual data presented in UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, Keel offered a diverse variety of conjectural material and gross speculation encompassing undiscerning and cynical perspectives of phenomena associated with contactees.

Something evident is that the 'contactees' usually didn't judge the authenticity of other contactees, not knowing what to expect of beings other than those with whom each was personally acquainted.  A letter from Orfeo Angelucci to Daniel Fry was published in the August 1957 issue of Fry's Understanding newsletter.  Angelucci wrote: 

From my side of the field I might say this.  It is very clear that though our earth is going full into outer space from now on, many of us wonder about the Visitors who have been awakening earthlings in these past ten years. Yes, many of us can see that they were saluting us, and preparing us for our space advent, but many feel that the visitors may have left our skies for awhile, to let us "ride on our own."  This is not so.  They are always observing, as you are aware of that fact.

So, though the whole world is now becoming Space-minded, there still seems to be an abysmal void somewhere in the whole activity.  And this is the lull before the storm, or the dark before the dawn.

It might have dawned on you simultaneously, and perhaps on the other contactees that this weak part of the activity can and must be filled by those already-prepared.  Thus, as contactees it becomes the call of us to merge the strength for the first time.  This brings to light such as Adamski, Bethurum, Van Tassel, yourself and myself.  Our concerted action would in this day be the most formidable and the most effective springboard to launch new activity from our Space Brothers, and so lift many earth people that the New Age could be hailed in.

Of course none of us want to lose touch with the main theme of our experiences, or have them influenced by those of another.  But the main theme of all is so similar, and only details and variety of manifestations may seem to make them differ.

In Aboard a Flying Saucer, Truman Bethurum wrote about feeling depressed at the end of February in 1953 when the visits from Aura and the Clarionites seemed to have ended.  Soon after arriving home in Redondo Beach, California, his mood changed upon receiving a letter that eventually "changed my whole world for me."

The letter was from a stranger to us, a Professor George Adamski located at the Palomar Gardens at the foot of Mt. Palomar, down near San Diego.  He stated in the letter that he had heard about my experiences on Mormon Mesa with the flying saucer people, and that he was very excited and interested.


He would like for me to come down to see him and compare experiences.

The visit occurred in July.  Bethurum commented:

After we returned home to Redondo Beach life changed for us again.  That tape recording which Professor Adamski had made and was playing for the general public's benefit, was really starting people to talking.  Furthermore, all kinds of people from little curious people to well known men of science were taking an inordinate interest in the subject.  Our doorbell began to ring mornings before we could even have our breakfast, and it hardly stopped for an intermission all day long and far into the night.  The telephone bell ran the doorbell a speedy second.  Even the mail man was loaded down with letters which deluged us with questions.  Our home wasn't private any more; it had become as public as a railroad waiting room.  Mobs wanted to hear the story.

In his book Bethurum wrote that he was convinced the flying saucer from Clarion would return "when conditions are right for it to do so" yet he would never again be able to report going aboard it.

In an abstract entitled "The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem" (1975), Joseph Allen Hynek considered "close encounters in which physical effects and craft occupants, respectively, are reported" —

Project Blue Book considered all of these as noise, dismissing the first almost always as a "hoax" and the second as "psychological."

But were they all hoaxes or the products of unbalanced minds?  Today, with a far larger data base than was available to Blue Book (for not only a great many UFO reports in this country never made their way to Blue Book, but the flow of foreign reports, gathered by UFO organizations and investigators in many other countries also largely by-passed Blue Book), we recognize the self-same patterns occurring today as were reported in the 1950's.  It has become increasingly harder to dismiss these reported patterns.  Some of what many of us regarded originally as noise may even prove to be part of the signal!  Take, for example, the reports from widely scattered regions of the globe, of the seemingly paranormal aspects of some UFO reports.  These "contactee" cases have generally been regarded even by seasoned  UFO investigators as crackpot emanations.  Could they, however, possibly be part of an extremely complex signal that our culture does not know how to interpret?