Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects',
completed in 1968, and released to the Press in January 1969.
On August 9, 1966, a confidential memorandum was written by a Mr
Robert J. Low to officials of the University of Colorado, concerning
the proposed contract between this University and the US Air Force,
for the former to conduct research into UFOs, and be paid for this
project out of public funds to the tune of some half a million
dollars. The project was to be under the direction of Dr Edward
U. Condon, with Mr Low (a member of the University staff) as the
project co-ordinator and 'key operations man'. The memorandum in
question was written before the contract was signed between
the University and the Air Force.
The Low memorandum was entitled 'Some Thoughts on the UFO Project',
and included the following passages (my italics):
'. . . Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by
non-believers who, though 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 non-believers
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 -- psychology and sociology
of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs. 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. . . . I'm inclined
to feel at this early stage that, if we set up the thing right
and take pains to get the proper people involved and have success
in presenting the image we want to present to the scientific
community, we could carry the job off to our benefit . . .'
This memorandum was accidentally discovered by a researcher late in
1967, and was revealed to the public in Look magazine in May
of 1968 . . .
The Low memorandum can only be viewed as a deliberate act calculated
to deceive; to deceive first the scientific community, and, through
them, the public at large. I know of no modern parallel to such a
cynical act of duplicity on the part of a university official . . . By
the writing of such a document, the integrity of the entire project
was shattered in advance. Mr Low's words disclose that everything in
the report -- unbeknown to the reader, be he scientist or layman --
could ultimately play its part in presenting the angled case whereby
the 'scientific community would quickly get the message'. This, in
plain language, means that a deliberate perversion of the truth was
planned before the contract with the Air Force was signed; which,
in turn, points to an agreement with someone, or some body, as to
what that 'message' should be. Thus the spirit of perversion must
inevitably have pervaded the whole fabric of the report; conditioned
what was included, and what was excluded; what was played up, and
what was played down; what was said in a particular manner, and what
was not said; what was implied, and what was not implied . . .
The Low memorandum also conveys an implied contempt for the subject of
the UFOs which the University was being handsomely paid to investigate
. . .
What underlines the dishonesty which surrounds the whole project is
the fact that at no time has the Low memorandum been repudiated,
or even deplored, by any of the parties to the deal. Neither
the University of Colorado nor the Air Force has had a word of
explanation to offer for behaviour which cuts at the very roots of
scientific integrity.
The explanation of the conspiracy -- there seems to be no other word to describe it -- is not difficult to guess. Some of the scientists on the committee had a genuine horror of getting involved with 'little green men from Venus' and refused to make a distinction between serious UFO research and the tales of crackpots and hoaxers. There are plenty of precedents for such an attitude in the history of science; long before the denial of meteors, some of Galileo's fellow-astronomers denied the existence of Jupiter's moons which he had discovered, and refused even to look through his telescope because they felt sure that those moons were an optical illusion.*
* See The Sleepwalkers, Ch. VIII, 6.
As for the Air Force and other official agencies, they well remembered the mass-hysteria and panic released by Orson Welles's 1938 broadcast about a Martian invasion, and were anxious to prevent a repetition. Moreover, Government agencies do not like to admit that there are things going on in the nation's sky which they are unable to explain. The upshot of it all was that in December 1969, the US Secretary for Air officially announced that further research 'cannot be justified on the ground of national security or in the interest of science', and closed 'Project Blue Book' down.
In contrast to the American attitude, French Government agencies frankly admitted that they took a lively interest in UFOs, encouraged the population to report sightings to the nearest gendarmerie, and ordered the gendarmes to report their investigations through official channels. More than that: in a remarkable radio interview in 1975, the French Minister of Defence, Robert Galley, explained in some detail the methods used to collect evidence on UFOs, insisted repeatedly on the necessity 'to keep an open mind', and affirmed that in his opinion the phenomena in question were 'to date unexplained or badly explained'. He also came out in favour of a suggestion by Claude Poher, Head of Research of the National Agency for Space Research, to construct automated observation posts to establish correlations between variations of the earth's magnetic field and passing UFOs. And yet the French are supposed to be a nation of sceptics.
What are we to conclude? Open-minded scientists, when confronted with prima facie evidence for phenomena which they cannot explain, go on collecting data in the hope that an explanation will eventually be found. This hope may be spurious, a product of the rationalist illusion, but there is no alternative strategy in science -- except the ostrich's, who follows the maxim: 'What I cannot explain cannot exist.' Granted that even the best-documented UFO cases resemble a 'festival of absurdity', we must also realize that when we approach the borders of science, whether in ESP or quantum physics or ufology, we must expect to encounter phenomena which seem to us paradoxical or absurd. To quote once more Aimé Michel: [8]
It must never be forgotten that in any manifestation of a superhuman
nature the apparently absurd is what one must expect. 'Why do you
take so much trouble about your food and your house?' one of my cats
asked me one day. 'What an absurd lot of upheaval, when everything can
be found in the dust-bins, and there is good shelter under the cars.'
REFERENCES
Prologue: The New Calendar (pages 1 to 20)
1. Time, New York, 29 January 1965.
2. Vaihinger (1911).
3. von Bertalanffy (1956).
4. MacLean (1962).
5. MacLean (1973).
6. MacLean (1958).
7. Gaskell (1908), pp. 65-7.
8. Wood Jones and Porteus (1929), pp. 27-8.
9. Lorenz (1966).
10. Russell (1950), p. 141.
PART ONE: OUTLINE OF A SYSTEM
Chapter I: The Holarchy (pages 23 to 56)
1. Frankl (1969), pp. 397-8.
2. Morris (1967).
3. Quoted by Frankl (1969).
4. Smuts (1926).
5. Pattee (1970).
6. Weiss (1969), p. 193.
7. Needham, J. (1936).
8. Needham, J. (1945).
9. Koestler (1964, 1967).
10. Koestler (1967).
11. Jevons (1972), p. 64.
12. Ruyer (1974).
13. Gerard (1957).
14. Gerard (1969), p. 228.
15. Thorpe (1974), p. 35.
16. Bonner (1965). p. 136.
17. Waddington (1957).
18. de St Hiiaire(1818).
19. Simon (1962).
20. Miller (1964).
21. Koestler(1969a).
22. Jaensch (1930).
23. Kluever (1933).
24. Penfield and Roberts (1959).
25. Frankl (1969).
Chapter II: Beyond Eros and Thanatos (pages 57 to 69)
1. Freud (1920), p. 63.
2. ibid., pp. 3-5.
3. Jones (1953), Vol. I, p. 142.
4. Horney (1939).
5. Pearl in Enc. Brit., 14th ed.
6. ibid.
7. Thomas (1974), p. 28.
8. ibid.
9. ibid., pp. 28-30.
Chapter IV: Ad Majorem Gloriam ... (pages 77 to 97).
1. Hayek (1966).
2. Milgram (1975), p. 18.
3. ibid.
4. Milgram (1974), p. 166.
5. ibid., p. 71.
6. ibid., p. 167.
7. ibid.
8. ibid., p. 131.
9. ibid., p. 132.
10. ibid.
11. ibid., p. 8.
12. ibid., p. 9.
13. ibid., p. 148.
14. Milgram (1975), p. 20.
15. Milgram (1974), p. 188.
16. Calder (1976), pp. 124-7.
17. Calder (1976).
18. Calder (1976a), p. 127.
19. Prescott (1964), p. 62.
20. The Times, London, 27 July 1966.
Chapter V: An Alternative to Despair (pages 98 to 106)
1. Hyden (1961).
2. Koestler (1967).
PART TWO: THE CREATIVE MIND
Chapter VI: Humour and Wit (pages 109 to 130)
1. Koestler (1948, 1959, 1964 and 1967).
2. Koestler (1974).
3. de Boulogne (1862).
4. Foss (1961).
5. Freud (1940), Vol. VI.
6. Huxley, A. (1961).
Chapter VIII: The Discoveries of Art (pages 137 to 161)
1. Jones (1957), Vol. 3, p. 364.
2. Pribram et al. (1960), p. 9.
3. Gellhorn (1957).
4. See Koestler (1964), Book I, Ch. V-XI.
5. Hadamard (1949).
6. Popper (1975).
7. ibid.
8. Koestler (1964, 1968, etc.).
9. Szent-Györgyi (1957).
10. Gombrich (1962), pp. 9, 120.
PART THREE: CREATIVE EVOLUTION
Chapter IX: Crumbling Citadels (pages 165 to 192)
1. Skinner (1953), pp. 30-1.
2. Jaynes (1976), p. xx.
3. Watson (1938), pp. 198 f.
4. Skinner (1953), p. 252.
5. ibid., pp. 108-9.
6. Skinner (1957), p. 163.
7. ibid., p. 438.
8. ibid., p. 439.
9. ibid., p. 150.
10. ibid., p. 206.
11. Koestler (1967), p. 12n.
12. Chomsky (1959).
13. cf., e.g., Macbeth (1971).
14. Huxley, J. (1957) quoted by Eisley (1961), p. 336.
15. Waddington (1957), pp. 64-5.
16. von Bertalanffy (1969), p. 67.
17. ibid.
18. Hardy (1965), p. 207.
19. von Bertalanffy (1969), p. 65.
20. Huxley, J. (1954), p. 14.
21. Waddington (1952).
22. Monod (1971), p. 121.
23. ibid., p. 122.
24. ibid.
25. ibid., p. 146.
26. Darwin, quoted by Macbeth (1971), p. 101.
27. Koestler (1967), pp. 128-9.
28. Grassé (1973).
29. Tinbergen (1951), p. 189.
30. ibid., p. 9.
31. Macbeth (1971), pp. 71-2.
32. von Bertalanffy (1969), p. 66.
33. Jenkin (1867).
34. Hardy (1965), p. 80.
35. Darwin, F., quoted by Hardy (1965), p. 81.
36. Bateson (1902).
37. Grassé (1973), p. 21.
38. ibid., p. 351.
39. ibid.
40. ibid.
41. Bateson, G., private communIcation, 2 July 1970.
42. Bateson, W (1913), p. 248.
43. Johannsen (1923), p. 140.
44. Butler (1951 ed.), p. 167, quoted by Himmelfarb (1959), p. 362.
46. Beadle (1963).
47. Grassé (1973), P. 369.
48. Simpson, Pittendrigh and Tiffany (1957), p. 330.
49. Grassé (1973).
50. Gorini (1966).
51. Koestler (1967), p. 133 -- based on de Beer (1940), p. 148,
and Hardy (1965), p. 212.
52. Cannon (1958), p. 118.
53. Monod (1971), p. 9.
54. ibid., pp. 21-2.
55. Grassé (1973), p. 277.
Chapter X: Lamarck Revisited (pages 193 to 204)
1. Kammerer in New York Evening Post, 23 February 1924.
2. Simpson (1950) quoted by Hardy (1965), p. 14.
3. Thomson (1908) quoted by Wood Jones (1943), p. 9.
4. Darlington in preface to reprint of On the Origin of Species (1950).
5. Spencer (1893), Vol. I, p. 621.
6. Haldane (1940), p. 39.
7. Huxley, J. (1954), p. 14.
8. McConnell (1965).
9. The Times, London, 26 June 1970.
10. Grassé (1973), p. 366.
11. ibid., p. 367.
12. Koestler (1971), p. 130.
13. Koestler (1967), pp. 158-9.
14. Waddington (1957), p. 182.
15. ibid.
16. Koestler and Smythies (1969), pp. 382 f.
17. Wood Jones (1943, p. 22.
18. Quoted by Smith (1975), pp. 162-3.
Chapter XI: Strategies and Purpose in Evolution (page 205 to 226)
1. Simpson, Pittendrigh and Tiffany (1957), p. 472.
2. Simpson (1949), p. 180.
3. Spurway (1949).
4. Whyte (1965).
5. Waddington (1957), p. 79.
6. Hardy (1965), p. 211.
7. Koestler (1967), pp. 148-9.
8. Simpson (1950), quoted by Hardy (1965), p. 14.
9. Sinnott (1961), p. 45.
10. Muller (1943), quoted by Sinnott (1961), p. 45.
11. Coghill (1929).
12. Hardy (1965), p. 176.
13. ibid., pp. 172, 192-3.
14. Huxley,J. (1964), p. 13.
15. Hardy (1965), de Beer (1940), Takhtajan (1972) and Koltsov (1936).
16. Koestler (1967), pp. 163-4.
17. Young (1950), p. 74.
18. de Beer (1940), p. 118.
19. Quoted by Takhtajan (1972).
20. ibid.
21. Koestler (1967), p. 166.
22. Hamburger (1973).
23. Herrick (1961).
24. Schrödinger (1944), p. 72.
25. Szent-Györgyi (1974)
26. ibid.
27. Grassé (1973), p. 401.
28. Waddington (1961).
PART FOUR: NEW HORIZONS
Chapter XII: Free Will in a Hierarchic Context (pages 229 to 241)
1. Hardy (1965), p. 229.
2. Thorpe (1966a).
3. Heisenberg (1969). p. 113.
5. Popper (1950).
6. Polanyi (1966).
7. MacKay (1966).
Chapter XIII: Physics and Metaphysics (pages 242 to 273)
1. New Scientist, 25 January 1973, p. 209.
2. Capra (1975), p. 52.
3. Newton, quoted by Capra (1975), p. 57.
4. Russell (1927), p. 163.
5. Capra (1975), p. 77.
6. Koestler (1972, 1973 and 1976).
7. Heisenberg quoted by Burt (1967), p. 80.
8. Heisenberg (1969), pp. 63-4.
9. Koestler (1972), p. 51.
10. Eccles (1953), pp. 276-7.
11. ibid., p. 279.
12. Firsoff (1967), pp. 102-3.
13. Dobbs (1967).
14. Walker (1973).
15. Heisenberg (1958), pp. 48-9.
16. Jeans (1937).
17. Hoyle (1966).
18. Wheeler quoted by Chase (1972).
19. Wheeler (1967), p. 246.
20. Margenau (1967), p. 218.
21. Bohm and Hiley (1974).
22. Margenau (1967), p. 218.
23. Jung (1960), p. 318.
24. ibid., p. 435.
25. ibid., p. 420.
26. Kammerer (1919), p. 93.
27. ibid., p. 165.
28. ibid., p. 456.
29. Quoted by Przibram (1926).
30. Koestler (1973), pp. 191-3.
31. Pauli (1952).
32. ibid., p. 164.
33. Jung (1960), p. 514.
34. Schopenhauer (1859).
35. della Mirandola (1557), p. 40.
36. Weaver (1963).
37. Bohm (1951).
38. Schrödinger (1944), p. 83.
39. Harvie (1973), p. 133.
40. Price quoted by Dobbs (1967), p. 239.
41. Dobbs (1967), p. 239.
42. Burt (1968), pp. 50, 58-9.
43. Grassé (1973), p. 401.
Chapter XIV: A Glance through the Keyhole (pages 274 to 286)
Janus Page 38