Original Documentation

---
title: "The Condon Report 1968: Scientific Study or Predetermined Conclusion?"
description: "Critical analysis of the University of Colorado's UAP study led by Dr. Edward Condon, examining its methodology, bias, internal conflicts, and lasting impact on scientific UAP research."
date: 1969-01-09
type: "Historical Document Analysis"
tags: ["Condon Report", "Air Force contract", "UAP debunking", "scientific bias", "Blue Book closure"]
---

Recent analysis reveals new insights into this UAP case. 

## Document Overview

If you're researching this aerial phenomenon case, here's what investigators discovered. 

The "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," known as the Condon Report, was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force and conducted by the University of Colorado from 1966 to 1968. Led by physicist Dr. Edward U. Condon, this $523,000 study was intended to provide definitive scientific assessment of UFOs. However, the report became mired in controversy due to documentation of predetermined conclusions, internal dissent, and selective case analysis. Despite finding that 30% of carefully studied cases remained unexplained, Condon concluded UFOs warranted no further scientific study - a recommendation that led to Project Blue Book's termination and decades of official dismissal.

## Project Background

### Air Force Motivation

**Pressure Points (1965-1966):**
- Congressional hearings demanded
- Public criticism mounting
- Blue Book ineffective
- Scientific community skeptical
- Media pressure intense
- Fresh approach needed

### Selection Process

**University of Colorado Chosen:**
- Prestigious institution
- Dr. Condon's reputation
- Scientific credentials
- Independence appearance
- Geographic location
- Political considerations

**Contract Details:**
- $523,000 funding
- 18-month timeline
- Full access promised
- Independence guaranteed
- Final report required
- AF review rights

## The Condon Approach

### Initial Statements

**Dr. Condon's Position:**
"I'm inclined to think that UFOs are not extraterrestrial intelligence."
- Statement before examination began
- Bias acknowledged openly
- Predetermined conclusion suspected
- Scientific objectivity questioned
- Staff concerns raised

### Methodology Issues

**Selective Case Analysis:**
- 90+ cases from thousands
- Cherry-picking alleged
- Best cases avoided
- Weak cases emphasized
- Statistical manipulation
- Pattern ignorance

### The "Trick" Memo

**Robert Low's Revelation:**
Project coordinator's memo discovered:
"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 nonbelievers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer."

**Impact:**
- Staff morale destroyed
- Objectivity exposed as facade
- Internal rebellion
- Media scandal
- Credibility damaged

## Internal Conflicts

### Staff Dissent

**Key Dissenters:**
- Dr. David Saunders (fired)
- Dr. Norman Levine (fired)
- Mary Lou Armstrong
- James McDonald criticism
- Multiple resignations

**Issues Raised:**
- Predetermined conclusions
- Case selection bias
- proof ignored
- individual ridicule
- Unscientific approach

### The Firings

**February 1968 Crisis:**
- Saunders/Levine terminated
- "Incompetence" claimed
- Real reason: memo leak
- Media coverage explosive
- Congressional interest
- Project credibility collapsed

## Case Analyses

### Unexplained Cases

**Despite Dismissive Tone:**
- 30% unexplained after analysis
- Multiple-individual cases
- Radar confirmation cases
- Physical data cases
- Photographic cases
- All minimized in conclusions

### Notable Cases Examined

**McMinnville Photos (1950):**
- Paul Trent photographs
- Extensive analysis
- No hoax testimony
- Authentic concluded
- Significance downplayed

**RB-47 Case (1957):**
- Multiple radar confirmation
- Visual sightings
- Electronic countermeasures
- 2-hour duration
- Unexplained but dismissed

**Lakenheath-Bentwaters (1956):**
- RAF/USAF involvement
- Multiple radar tracking
- Fighter interception
- Intelligent maneuvers
- Case buried in appendix

### Case Selection Criticism

**What Was Avoided:**
- Multiple-eyewitness defense personnel cases
- Best Blue Book unknowns
- Foreign military cases
- Nuclear facility incidents
- Pattern analysis

## Report Structure

### Main Sections

1. **Summary and Recommendations**
   - Dismissive conclusions
   - No further study needed
   - Educational emphasis
   - Psychological focus

2. **Case Studies**
   - Mixed quality
   - Selective presentation
   - Unexplained minimized
   - Explanations forced

3. **Scientific Analysis**
   - Atmospheric physics
   - Perception psychology
   - Radar limitations
   - Photo analysis
   - Statistical review

### Hidden in Appendices

**Buried Findings:**
- Strong cases relegated
- Dissenting opinions
- Unexplained percentages
- eyewitness credibility
- Pattern data

## The O'Brien Report

### Prior Recommendation

**O'Brien Committee (1966):**
- Recommended serious study
- Emphasized unknowns
- Suggested open mind
- Called for resources
- Condon ignored findings

### Contradiction

**O'Brien vs. Condon:**
- Different conclusions
- Same data base
- Approach variance
- Bias difference
- Political pressure

## Scientific Reception

### AIAA Review

**American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics:**
- Subcommittee formed
- Report criticized
- Methodology questioned
- Conclusions challenged
- Further study urged

### Individual Scientists

**Dr. James McDonald:**
- Atmospheric physicist
- Harsh critic
- Case re-examinations
- Exposed flaws
- Testified to Congress

**Dr. J. Allen Hynek:**
- Former Blue Book consultant
- Criticized approach
- "Scientific scandal"
- Advocated continued research
- Founded CUFOS

## Political Impact

### Congressional Response

**House Hearings (1968):**
- Report questioned
- Scientists testified
- Controversy acknowledged
- No action taken
- Issue dropped

### Air Force Decision

**Blue Book Termination:**
- December 17, 1969
- Cited Condon Report
- No further research
- Public responsibility ended
- Files archived

## Media Coverage

### Initial Reception

**Headlines Emphasized:**
- "No data" conclusion
- Scientific validation
- Mystery solved
- Believers discredited
- Case closed

### Later Analysis

**Critical Coverage:**
- Internal conflicts exposed
- Bias revealed
- Methodology questioned
- Firings examined
- Credibility challenged

## Long-term Consequences

### Scientific Stigma

**Academic Impact:**
- Unidentified Aerial occurrence research taboo
- Career suicide
- Funding impossible
- Ridicule assured
- Progress halted

### Official Policy

**Government Position:**
- No official analysis
- Refer to Condon
- Case closed stance
- FOIA battles
- Secrecy maintained

### Public Effect

**Societal Impact:**
- Witnesses silenced
- Ridicule increased
- Reporting decreased
- Underground research
- Trust eroded

## Hidden Agendas

### Robertson Panel Connection

**1953 Blueprint Followed:**
- Debunking emphasis
- Public education
- Ridicule strategy
- Authority use
- Same playbook

### Intelligence Involvement

**CIA/NSA Presence:**
- Advisors assigned
- Cases screened
- Classified withheld
- Narrative controlled
- Real data hidden

## Scientific Failures

### Methodology Flaws

**Unscientific Aspects:**
- Conclusion predetermined
- data selected
- Patterns ignored
- Statistics misused
- Witnesses dismissed

### Missed Opportunities

**What Could Have Been:**
- Genuine research
- Pattern analysis
- Technology study
- International cooperation
- Scientific advancement

## The Real Data

### Statistical Reality

**Report's Own Findings:**
- 30% unexplained
- Best cases mysterious
- Multiple observer reliability
- Physical documentation exists
- Patterns undeniable

### Buried Conclusions

**What Scientists Found:**
- Real phenomena
- Technology demonstrated
- Intelligence indicated
- Study warranted
- Mystery genuine

## Comparison Studies

### French Approach

**GEPAN/SEPRA:**
- Scientific rigor
- Open inquiry
- Cases documented
- Phenomena accepted
- Research continues

### Soviet Studies

**Academy of Sciences:**
- Serious approach
- Military cooperation
- Phenomena real
- Technology studied
- Different conclusion

## Modern Perspective

### Historical Vindication

**Current View:**
- Bias confirmed
- Flaws recognized
- Damage acknowledged
- Revision needed
- Truth emerging

### Pentagon Reversal

**UAP Acknowledgment:**
- Condon conclusion wrong
- Phenomena real
- Study resumed
- Threats assessed
- History corrected

## Document Revelations

### Declassified Materials

**Now Available:**
- Internal memos
- Dissenting reports
- Suppressed cases
- True statistics
- Political pressure

### person Testimonies

**Staff Revelations:**
- Pressure described
- Bias confirmed
- proof hidden
- Truth sacrificed
- Regrets expressed

## Critical Analysis

### Scientific Malpractice

**Violations Include:**
- Predetermined conclusions
- Selective data
- Statistical manipulation
- observer dismissal
- Pattern blindness

### Political Success

**Achieved Goals:**
- Blue Book ended
- Congress satisfied
- Media convinced
- Public placated
- Issue buried

## Lessons Learned

### For Science

**Important Reminders:**
- Independence crucial
- Bias destructive
- Politics corrupts
- Truth matters
- Courage required

### For Disclosure

**Understanding Gained:**
- Official studies suspect
- Hidden agendas common
- Truth emerges slowly
- Persistence necessary
- Victory eventual

## Report's True Value

### Unintended Consequences

**Positive Results:**
- Civilian research motivated
- Scientists awakened
- Cases preserved
- Patterns documented
- Truth survived

### Historical Record

**Documents Prove:**
- Phenomena real
- Cover-up attempted
- Science corrupted
- Public deceived
- Mystery continues

## Key Quotes

### Condon's Conclusion

"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge...further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby."

### Internal Dissent

"The project was programmed to reach a negative conclusion from the start." - Dr. David Saunders

### McDonald's Response

"The Condon Report is a scientific scandal of major proportions." - Dr. James McDonald

## Conclusions

The Condon Report represents one of the most controversial and damaging documents in Aerial Anomaly history. Commissioned to provide objective scientific analysis, it instead delivered predetermined conclusions that contradicted its own data. The report's finding that 30% of investigated cases remained unexplained should have warranted expanded research; instead, Condon recommended termination of all official study.

The internal conflicts, firings, and leaked memos revealed an inquiry compromised from inception. The "trick" memo exposed the true agenda: appearing objective while ensuring negative conclusions. This scientific malpractice set back legitimate Unidentified Flying craft research by decades and created a stigma that persists today.

However, the report's failure ultimately strengthened civilian Unidentified Flying Object research and preserved crucial evidence. Its transparent bias and methodological flaws became obvious to serious researchers, who continued investigating despite official discouragement. The recent Pentagon acknowledgment of UAPs vindicates those who saw through the Condon Report's agenda and recognized the genuine mystery it attempted to dismiss.

The Condon Report stands as a cautionary tale about the corruption of science by politics and predetermined agendas. Its legacy reminds us that truth eventually emerges, despite official efforts to suppress it, and that genuine scientific inquiry cannot be stopped by biased reports, no matter how prestigious their authors or institutions.

Ongoing analysis of such encounters helps advance our comprehension of unexplained aerial observations.
## Frequently Asked Questions About This Case

### What makes this UFO case significant?

This case is significant due to multiple credible witnesses, official documentation, and consistent testimony patterns that align with other verified aerial phenomena reports.

### When did this aerial phenomenon occur?

The incident occurred during a period of heightened UAP activity, with precise timing documented by multiple independent sources.

### Who were the primary witnesses?

Primary witnesses included trained observers, military personnel, and civilian eyewitnesses with relevant professional backgrounds.

### What evidence supports this incident?

Evidence includes official reports, witness testimony, radar data, and in some cases photographic or physical trace evidence.

### How was this case investigated?

Investigation followed standard protocols including witness interviews, evidence analysis, and coordination with relevant authorities.



## Key Research Points

This case contributes important data to aerial phenomena research and demonstrates the value of systematic investigation methods in unexplained aircraft encounters.