Document Overview
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 evidence 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 investigation 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
- Evidence ignored
- Witness 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-witness cases
- Radar confirmation cases
- Physical evidence cases
- Photographic cases
- All minimized in conclusions
Notable Cases Examined
McMinnville Photos (1950):
- Paul Trent photographs
- Extensive analysis
- No hoax evidence
- 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-witness military cases
- Best Blue Book unknowns
- Foreign military cases
- Nuclear facility incidents
- Pattern analysis
Report Structure
Main Sections
-
Summary and Recommendations
- Dismissive conclusions
- No further study needed
- Educational emphasis
- Psychological focus
-
Case Studies
- Mixed quality
- Selective presentation
- Unexplained minimized
- Explanations forced
-
Scientific Analysis
- Atmospheric physics
- Perception psychology
- Radar limitations
- Photo analysis
- Statistical review
Hidden in Appendices
Buried Findings:
- Strong cases relegated
- Dissenting opinions
- Unexplained percentages
- Witness credibility
- Pattern evidence
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 evidence 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 investigation
- Public responsibility ended
- Files archived
Media Coverage
Initial Reception
Headlines Emphasized:
- “No Evidence” 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:
- UFO research taboo
- Career suicide
- Funding impossible
- Ridicule assured
- Progress halted
Official Policy
Government Position:
- No official investigation
- 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
- Evidence selected
- Patterns ignored
- Statistics misused
- Witnesses dismissed
Missed Opportunities
What Could Have Been:
- Genuine investigation
- Pattern analysis
- Technology study
- International cooperation
- Scientific advancement
The Real Data
Statistical Reality
Report’s Own Findings:
- 30% unexplained
- Best cases mysterious
- Multiple witness reliability
- Physical evidence 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 investigation
- 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
Witness Testimonies
Staff Revelations:
- Pressure described
- Bias confirmed
- Evidence hidden
- Truth sacrificed
- Regrets expressed
Critical Analysis
Scientific Malpractice
Violations Include:
- Predetermined conclusions
- Selective evidence
- Statistical manipulation
- Witness 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 UFO 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 investigation compromised from inception. The “trick” memo exposed the true agenda: appearing objective while ensuring negative conclusions. This scientific malpractice set back legitimate UFO research by decades and created a stigma that persists today.
However, the report’s failure ultimately strengthened civilian UFO 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.