UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 7

Re: Edward Condon

From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:21:07 -0500 (EST)
Archived: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:48:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Edward Condon

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:05:54 EST
>Subject: Re: Edward Condon [was: Newly Released CIA Documents On UFOs?]

>>From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:12:50 -0500 (EST)
>>Subject: Re: Newly Released CIA Documents On UFOs?


>Further on you do not say anything about Condon working for the
>CIA or him "bending" to his "employers".


>>You said that the concerned document is "nothing new". Obviously
>>it has been a long time since you read it: there is no reference
>>to any R! . Saunders and no mention of anyone touring anything.

>I told you there were other CIA NPIC documents on Condon, and
>they are posted on CIA's public FOIA website.

>No Saunders? No touring NPIC??Here is NPIC Director Art
>Lundahl's memo to his boss the DDI on Feb, 7, 1967:


There is something you don't seem to get: I simply mentioned the
February 1967 report as an illustration of human nature and you
jumped in with this kind of sneer comment:

>Speaking of "suppression" aren't you leaving out the most
>salient point which is that our pro-UFO hero David R. Saunders
>was part of Condon's group visiting the CIA? You also left out
>that they weren't visiting some spooky CIA spy operation but
>simply touring the photographic facilities of NPIC which
>processed U-2 and satellite recon pics.

Implying I was manipulating information in some way to support
my point.!

You even followed with a time jump of one year:

>Sau nders never breathed a word of his CIA NPIC visit and
>contacts to anyone, even after Condon fired him in Feb 1968 over
>the famous pro-UFO incident when he leaked the Low 'trick' memo
>to McDonald. Why not ponder the coverup involved with that?

When I say there was no Saunders and no touring I simply meant
that the essence of this document, for me, was an illustration
of human nature, which you seem to stubbornly ignore by coming
back with what not about the CIA, the spooks, and the nefarious
aspects of a boiling plot.

I know perfectly well that Condon sank ufology. It was the
purpose of this study from the beginning. Nobody except the
Colorado University wanted to do it because of fear of ridicule.


>So Condon lied and claimed in his Final Report that the
>McMinnville photos were "too fuzzy" to apply Merritt's
>techniques, and so Merritt never got a contract to do the
>an! alysis of McMinnville. Meanwhile in the years since, Bruce
>Maccabee and I have been doing Merritt's kind of photogrammetry
>on the McMinnville photos, but without his Raytheon equipment.
>Such a tragic loss to science, all because Condon was determined
>to not help prove UFO reality.


>>More: the reader discovers in Condon a passionate man overly
>>enthusiastic about the possibility it is the real deal. He even
>>wanted to share this with the public.

>You need to read up on tricky Condon. He told an audience of the
>American Chemical Society on January 25, 1967, that he the
>government should "get out of this [UFO] business" because
>"there's nothing to it." Condon smiled and added "but I'm not
>supposed to reach a conclusion for another year."

Yes: from Clark The UFO Book, p597, Keyhoe and Hall brought the
news to a shocked Saunders on January 31, 1! 967. This was from
a January 26 clipping from the Elmira Star-Gaze tte.

Still: this was talking to the press, but the February 1967
mentions that "3. The clearance level for the meeting was

The "schocked" Saunders from January 31 1967 was with the tricky
Condon on February 20, 1967, along with Low and a few others, to
discuss the merits of the Zanesville case and its value as the
real deal.

It is clearly established then that no link between the CIA and
Condon shall ever be mentioned.


>Condon was famed for his love of contactee "kook" cases, his
>frequent cursing of the "damn ooo-foe" as he liked to pronounce
>it. Condon made up bogus evidence against UFO reality, such as
>his egregious lie that witnesses to a prank hot-air balloon in
>Castle Rock, Colo., had reported seeing a "spacecraft ... with
>occupants." In fact no one reported any such thing and all of
>the reports right in the Condon Report accurately described a
t;slow-moving balloon-like translucent object.


Since the dice were loaded from the start, what would you have
him do? Study the subject seriously?


>>It is also evident that Condon did not deny the reality of UFOs.

>Again, you need to read up on Condon.


I'm doing my homework.

It seems though that we see the data from a different

For you, Condon is the bad guy.

For me, I am not sure he had a choice in the matter and I don't
think that his personal beliefs were ever a factor.

We should ponder on Hynek's final words about him in Clark's

Vincent Boudreau

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com