Info on the Condon Committee
The level to which ufological debates can sink is at times
discouraging. Character assasination and ridicule are no
substitute for reasoned inquiry. Many skeptics point to
the report prepared in 1969 at the University of Colorado
by the now infamous "Condon Committee" as the final word on
UFOs - the matter is considered by these persons as a dead
issue because it is widely (and incorrectly) presumed that
this panel of respected scientists performed an unbiased
examination of the subject and found nothing to support the
reality of the phenomena reported. However, any unbiased
reading of the final report will confirm that what the
Condon Committee really performed was a "hatchet job"
and no scientifically adequate UFO investigation has yet
been conducted in the 40+ years since the Kenneth Arnold
sighting first popularized the subject, including the Condon
Report, which coincidentally was relied on by the Air Force,
in 1969, as justification to terminate its official PUBLIC
investigation of UFO reports, known as "Project Bluebook."
One case cited by James E. McDonald, Phd., in his article
"Science in Default," UFO'S A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE, Carl Sagan
and Thornton Page, eds.(1972), as an illustration of the
"serious shortcomings" of the Condon Report, occurred at
Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, on November 4, 1957,
and is summarized by Dr. McDonald as follows: Two
CAA control operators observed a lighted egg-shaped
object descend to and cross obliquely the runway area
at Kirtland AFB (Albuquerque), hover near the ground
for tens of seconds, then climb at unprecedented speed
into the overcast. On radar, it was then followed
south some miles where it orbited a number of minutes
before returning to the airfield to follow an Air
Force aircraft outbound from Kirtland. This case
is discussed at page 141 of the Condon Report and had been
in Bluebook files for years without serious investigation.
The Condon Report states that on the night in question, with a
"light rain over the airfield," ...Observers in the CAA
(now FAA) control tower saw an unidentified dark object
with a white light underneath, about the "shape of an
automobile on end," that crossed the field at about
1500 ft. and circled as if to come in for a landing
on the E-W runway. This unidentified object appeared
to reverse direction at low altitude, while out of
sight of the observers behind some buildings, and
climbed suddenly to about 200-300 ft., heading away
from the field on a 120 deg. course. Then it went
into a steep climb and disappeared into the overcast.
The Air Force view is that this UFO was a small, powerful
private aircraft, flying without flight plan, that became
confused and attempted a landing at the wrong airport.
The pilot apparently realized his error when he saw
a brightly lit restricted area, which was at the point
where the object reversed direction... The Condon Report
concludes by commenting that the radar return obtained from
this object was a "perfectly normal aircraft return," and
that the radar track "showed no characteristics that would
have been beyond the capabilities of the more powerful
private aircraft available at the time...There seems to
be no reason to doubt the accuracy of this analysis."
Dr. McDonald was suspicious of this "analysis," since,
among other things, airport control towers are not located
in such a manner that "buildings" obscure so much airfield
airspace that an aircraft can perform a dangerous 180 deg. low
altitude turn while hidden from the tower behind them, then
climb suddenly. He conducted an independent investigation
of the case, along with several dozen more cases used in the
Condon Report. Although on-duty flight controllers
would have appeared to have the most credible evidence to
provide, the Condon Committee never interviewed or contacted
the two tower controllers, R.M. Kaser and E.G. Brink, prior
to evaluating the case. These men had never even heard of
the Condon Project. They later stated that the object was
so unlike an aircraft and exhibited such unusual performance
characteristics that the "aircraft" explanation was amusing
to them. Apparently, by 1969, Dr. McDonald was the first
person to contact them about the case since their original
interview by the Air Force immediately after the incident.
The Bluebook file indictaes that the object descended in
a steep dive at the east end of Runway 26, left the flight
line, crossed runways, taxiways and unpaved areas at about a
30 deg. angle, and proceeded southwesterly toward the control
tower at an altitude of a few tens of feet. Observing through
7X binoculars, they saw that the object had no wings, tail or
fuselage, was elongated vertically and had an egg-like shape.
It appeared about 15-20 feet tall, with a single white
light at its base. It approached them until reaching
a B-58 service pad in a restricted area. There it stopped
for several seconds to a minute and moved off slowly still
at low altitude. At that point, the object climbed away
at an extremely fast rate, which the controllers estmated
to be far in excess of the capabilities of then current
military jet aircraft. Brink stated, "There is no doubt in
my mind that no aircraft I knew of then, or even operating
since then, would compare with it. Both stated that at no
time was the object hidden by buildings. Further, the FAA
confirmed that no buildings had ever existed in the area.
As observed on surveillance radar, the object moved away at
a high rate of speed and proceeded a number of miles south,
where it orbited the Albuquerque Low Frequency Range Station
for several minutes, came back north to Kirtland and followed
a half mile behind a USAF C-46 just leaving Kirtland,
before moving behind the aircraft out of range of the
radar. The Bluebook 21-page report on this case lists
it as "possible aircraft," citing the following analysis:
The opinion of the preparing officer is that this object
may possibly have been an unidentified aircraft, possibly
confused by the runways at Kirtland AFB. The reasons for
this opinion are: (a) The observers are considered
competent and reliable sources, and in the opinion of
this interviewer actually saw an object they could not
identify, (b) The object was tracked on a radar scope
by a competent operator, and (c) The object does not
meet identification criteria for any other phenomena.
The Condon Report devotes only two paragraphs to this case,
cites the Air Force conclusion and adds that the private
aircraft was "powerful" and was flying without a flight plan.
As Dr. McDonald indicates, two phone calls to the principal
witnesses would have rendered the "powerful private aircraft"
explanation "untenable." Those calls were never made by the
Condon Committee. By not contacting important witnesses in
this and other cases summarized in the Condon Report, relied
upon by many as "the most exhaustive scientific examination"
of the UFO evidence ever conducted, many such dramatic cases
are listed now (and forgotten) as "explained." This is
just a sampling of the poorly conducted scientific inquiry
the Condon Committee performed. Contrary to the widley held
opinion, the Condon(m?) Report is far from the "final word"
on ufology which the professional skeptics claim.
Go back to UFO and Aliens index page