Condon's conclusions: no scientific gain from 21 years of UFO study, no reason to doubt the Air Force's finding that UFOs pose no defence problem, and no need for a special unit like Blue Book. Also invites scientists to test the conclusions.
“Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge.” source
Full text of the report hosted by the National Capital Area Skeptics (electronic edition 1999, with permission of the Regents of the University of Colorado). Index: https://files.ncas.org/condon/
OFFICIALUniversity of Colorado, President's Office · 1968-10-31
The university's covering letter to Air Force Secretary Harold Brown under contract F44620-67-C-0035. It states the Air Force supplied its information and did not interfere with the work.
“There has never been the slightest suggestion of any effort on the part of the Air Force to influence either the conduct of the investigation or the content of this report.” source
Same NCAS electronic edition of the report.
OFFICIALNational Academy of Sciences (panel; catalogued under Gerald M. Clemence) · 1969-01-08
The Academy panel's review. It judged the scope adequate and the methods well chosen, noted that none of 35 photographic cases proved to be real objects of high strangeness, and concurred that no high priority for UFO investigation was warranted.
“On the basis of present knowledge the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings.” source
Internet Archive copy of the Defense Technical Information Center record AD0688541 (scanned, 11 pages). The quote is from the record's DTIC abstract on that page.
OFFICIALUS Air Force (fact sheet) · DATE TO VERIFY
The Air Force states that its decision to stop UFO investigations rested on the Colorado report, the Academy's review of it, earlier studies and its own experience since the 1940s.
af.mil blocks some automated readers (HTTP 403); read in full through a scraping service. No publication date shown.
OFFICIALAll-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, US Department of Defense · 2024-03-08
AARO's summary of the Condon study: an 18-month study under a $325,000 Air Force contract, focused on scientific merit rather than national security, with 59 case studies; notes criticism by some scientists, including Hynek.
Report dated February 2024, released 8 March 2024.
CLASSIFIEDDeclassifiedFILE NO. 013SHEET 2 OF 2
Analysis
Our own reading of the file, written from the sources on the other sheets. Opinion is marked as such.
The Condon Report is the closest thing the United States has to an official scientific verdict on UFOs, and its headline is plain: nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. The National Academy of Sciences agreed, and the Air Force used both documents to close Blue Book. None of that is in dispute.
What is disputed is whether the headline fairly sums up the book under it. Condon wrote the conclusions; he took no part in the 59 case studies, which were done mostly by junior staff. Peter Sturrock, a Stanford astrophysicist, argued that the staff stressed hard cases and open questions while the director stressed the difficulty of further study. The photo analyst, William Hartmann, put the residue of well-recorded but unidentified cases at around 2%. An aeronautics society's subcommittee made a similar point in 1970.
Two things can be true. The report's case work explains most reports as ordinary objects, and a small number resisted explanation. Whether that small number justified more research was a judgement call. Condon said no, and invited scientists to disagree. Some did.
What it shows
That an Air Force-funded university study concluded in 1968 that further extensive UFO study probably could not be justified as a way to advance science.
That the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the report and agreed with its scope, methods and findings.
That the Air Force cited the report and the Academy's review when it closed Project Blue Book in December 1969.
What it doesn't prove
That every case in the report was explained. A small number of the case studies stayed unexplained, by the report's own staff accounts.
That the study was rigged. Critics say the summary and the case work disagree; that is a dispute about judgement, not proof of a fix.
That UFO reports have no scientific interest at all. The report itself recommended support for specific, well-defined research proposals.
The other side
Peter Sturrock argued that the report does not say what its summary says. Condon took no part in the case studies; the staff who did them tended to stress challenging cases and open questions. The photo analyst found a residue of about 2% well-recorded but unidentified objects, while Condon's summary described the photographic evidence differently. Sturrock also noted that the Academy panel had only weeks to review a very long report and drew partly on Condon's summary. On this view, the report makes a case for further study, not against it.
What exactly led to the 1968 dismissals, and what role an internal 1966 memo by the project coordinator played. The primary accounts have not yet been checked by us.
Would the unexplained cases in the report look different with today's methods? No official body has re-examined them.
Other analyses
COMMENTARYP. A. Sturrock, Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, Stanford University (Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 75–100) · 1987
Journal article, first drafted in 1974. Finds that Condon took no part in the case studies and that the staff's findings differ substantially from those the director attributes to the project; quotes the AIAA subcommittee's similar view.
“The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are substantial and significant differences between the findings of the project staff and those that the director attributes to the project.” source
Overview of the project's history, the 1968 dismissal of Saunders and Levine, the Low memorandum and Look magazine controversy, and the report's delivery in November 1968 and release in January 1969. A route to sources only.
Commentary. Used only alongside other sources; its claims about the Low memorandum are listed under [TO VERIFY].
TO VERIFY Candidates, not yet checked
The Robert J. Low memorandum of 9 August 1966 (the “trick” memo): only seen via Wikipedia and a NICAP transcription. Needs a primary or reputable copy before it goes on a sheet.
Philip M. Boffey, “UFO Project: Trouble on the Ground”, Science 161 (26 July 1968), pp. 339–342, doi 10.1126/science.161.3839.339: citation confirmed via PubMed and Crossref, text not opened (science.org returned 403).
John G. Fuller, “Flying Saucer Fiasco”, Look, May 1968: only available on a UFO-history site; not used.
Exact date of the dismissals of David Saunders and Norman Levine (sources say February 1968) and the exact public release date of the report (January 1969).
Sturrock's 1974 Stanford report (SUIPR 599), the first version of his critique: not opened.
J. Allen Hynek, “The Condon Report and UFOs”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 25 (1969), pp. 39–42: cited by Sturrock, not opened.
Full report at DTIC (AD0680975–AD0680977): apps.dtic.mil returned 403.
Found, but not linked to a source we trust. Not on the sheets until they are.
Noted in this browser only. Results appear when the poll has a backend.
Follow the thread
From Roswell to AARO· step 3 of 4 · DraftAn Air Force-funded study at the University of Colorado: nothing from 21 years of UFO study had added to science. Blue Book closed the next year.NEXT: 2022-US-AARO →
Trails and trail stamps are part of Level 2. Every file in them is open to everyone.
