Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (the Condon Report, complete, three volumes)

would have given if interviewed separately before they had talked the
matter over together.
One of the earliest of our field trips (December 1966) was made
to \~a')hington, D. C. to interview separately two ai:r traffic control
operators who had been ~nvolved in the great UFO flap there in the
summer of 1952. Fourteen years later, these two men were still qUite
annoyed at the newspape~ ~ubli~ity they had received, because it hai
tended to ridicule thei~ reports. Our conclusion from this trip was
that these men were tel~ing in 1966 stories that were thoroughly con-
si stent wi. th the 11uin points of their stories as told in 1952. Possibly
this was clue to the fact that because of their strong emotional involve-
ment they had recounted the incident to many persons at many times over
the intervening years. Although it was true that the stories had not
changed appreciably in 14 years, it nu~ als0 true fnr this very reason
that we acquired no I1ew material by interviewing these men again. (Sec
Section III, Chapter 5).
On the basi~ of this experience we decided that it was not profit-
able to devote mULl, effort to re-intervicwing pcrsons who had already
been interviewed rather th"rollghly at a previous time. We do not say
that nothing can be gained in this way, but merely that it did not
seem to us that this would be a profitable way to spend our effort in
this study.
In our experienf:e those who report UFOs are often very articulate,
but not necessarily reliable. One evening in 19G7 a mcst articulate
gentleman told liS with calm good manners all of the circumFrances of a
number of UFOs Ill' IwJ ~,eell that had ('om0 fron: ()l~ter space, and in
partiCUlar went into S01l1l' detail about how his wi.ft"~; grandfather had
immi gra tcd to Amt'ri C:I froll1 th{' Andromcdu nebula, a gtd a}'.y locateu
2,OOU,OOll light year~ fronl tile t'arth.
In <1 few cases stuJy qf old reports may fd Vi' the investigator- a
clue to a pos~ibll' intcrprt)tation that 1".11<.1 lIot OCC~llTed to the original
illvesti&ator. In ~,l1ch a cnse, [I later inter"fie'''' {If the witness may
2!1
would have given if interviewed separately before they had talked the
matter over together.
One of the earliest of our field trips (December 1966) was made
to \'la',hington, D. C. to interview separately two ai:r traffic contrul
operators v.ho had been.nval ved in the great UFO flap ther':! in the
summer of 1952. Fourteen years later, these HID men wer", still quite
annoyed at the newspape~ ~ubli~ity they had received, because it hai
tended to ridicule theit' reports. Our conclusion from this trip was
that these men I.ere tel:.ingin 1966 stories that were thoroughly con-
sistent with the m~in points of their stories as told in 1952. Possibly
this was due to the fact that because of ~hciT strong emotional involve-
ment they had recounted the incident to many persons at many times over
the intervening years. Although it was true that the stories had not
changed ap?reciably in 14 years, it als0 true fnr this very reason
that we acquired no IIC'W matel'i.al by interviewiJig these men again. (Sec
Section III, Chapter 5).
On the basi:,; of this expel'ience we decided that it was not profit-
able to devote mUUl effort to re-interviewing persons who had already
been interviewed rather th(lrollgh ly at a previous time. We do not say
that nothing can he gained in this way, but merely that it did not
"eem to LIS that this would be a profitable way to spend our effort in
this study.
In our experienr:e those who report UF(ls are often very articulate,
but not necessarily relia~le. One evening ill J9G7 a mcst articulate
Rent10man told us with calm good manners 011 of the cjrcumF~ance5 of B
number of tWOs he twJ ~;CCI\ that h:Jd (,Olne' from OL!ter space, and in
particular WCllt into SVllll' J~rail about how his \\life"; grandfnther had
immi grated to !\m€'ri en frolll tile Andromeda nebula, a gular.)' locateu
2,OOO,OOll light ycar~ from the oarth.
In ,1 few eases study ()f old r(!ports iliaI' fdv(' the inve~tigator a
clue ~o a pos:;iblc' intC'l'pretatioll that I-.au not (ll'e~IITCcl to thl) original
itlvestiRutor. In !,lIch u cnsc, iI later intclTif?w {,f the wi.tness may
2~1