The Condon Report: A Scientific Study of UFOs

This article is part of an ongoing series created in collaboration with the UAP News Center, a leading website for the most up-to-date UAP news and information. Visit UAP News Center for the full collection of infographics.

Key Takeaways

• The Condon Report was a government-funded study that concluded UFOs do not justify further scientific research.
• The project was beset by internal controversy, including a leaked memo suggesting the negative conclusion was predetermined.
• The report led to the termination of Project Blue Book and ended official U.S. government UFO investigations for decades.

Introduction

The late 1960s represented a turning point in how the United States government approached the phenomenon of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). After two decades of gathering reports through military channels, the Air Force sought an independent scientific review to determine if these sightings held any value for national security or scientific advancement. The resulting study, officially titled Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects but commonly known as the Condon Report, became one of the most significant documents in the history of the field. Directed by physicist Edward Condon at the University of Colorado, the project ran from 1966 to 1968 and released its findings in January 1969.

The report’s conclusions were stark: UFOs presented no threat to national security, and further scientific study would likely yield no valuable knowledge. These findings provided the justification for the Air Force to close its long-running Project Blue Book and withdraw from the public investigation of aerial anomalies. However, the path to these conclusions was fraught with internal conflict, accusations of bias, and a disconnect between the summary written by the director and the detailed case studies prepared by the staff. Today, the Condon Report remains a subject of intense debate, viewed by some as a definitive scientific dismissal and by others as a flawed exercise in debunking.

Origins and Historical Context

To understand why the Condon Report was commissioned, it is necessary to examine the climate of the mid-1960s. The United States was in the midst of the Cold War and the Space Race, and the public’s fascination with space and the possibility of extraterrestrial life was at its peak. Since 1947, the United States Air Force had been tasked with investigating UFO reports, primarily to ensure that Soviet technology was not penetrating American airspace. This responsibility evolved through several projects, settling on Project Blue Book in 1952.

By the mid-1960s, Project Blue Book had investigated over 10,000 sightings. While the vast majority were explained as misidentifications of stars, aircraft, or weather phenomena, a stubborn percentage remained unidentified. Public pressure mounted as high-profile sightings occurred across the country. In 1965, a massive wave of reports flooded the Air Force, and the explanations provided by Blue Book officials – often dismissing sightings as “swamp gas” or astronomical bodies – began to ring hollow to the public and the press.

The turning point came in 1966, following a series of sightings in Michigan. Project Blue Book consultant J. Allen Hynek famously attributed the sightings to “swamp gas,” a statement that was widely ridiculed. Then-Congressman and future President Gerald Ford, representing Michigan, called for a congressional inquiry. Ford argued that the American public deserved a better explanation than they were getting and pushed for an investigation that was transparent and scientifically rigorous.

In response to this political pressure, the Air Force convened the O’Brien Committee, an ad hoc panel led by physicist Brian O’Brien. This panel reviewed the work of Project Blue Book and concluded that the Air Force’s methodology was outdated and insufficient. They recommended that a university-based team of physical and social scientists conduct an independent study of the UFO problem. This recommendation laid the groundwork for what would become the Colorado Project.

The Air Force approached several prestigious universities to host the study, including Harvard and MIT, but was met with reluctance. The topic of UFOs was considered fringe and potentially damaging to an institution’s reputation. Finally, the University of Colorado at Boulder agreed to undertake the project. The acceptance was controversial even within the university, but the promise of Air Force funding and the opportunity to perform a public service persuaded the administration to proceed.

Formation of the Committee

The University of Colorado formally accepted the contract in October 1966. The project was funded by the Air Force with an initial budget of roughly $300,000, which eventually grew to over $500,000 (equivalent to nearly $5 million today). To lead the study, the university appointed Edward Condon, a distinguished physicist and former director of the National Bureau of Standards. Condon was a figure of considerable scientific stature, known for his work in quantum mechanics and his involvement in the Manhattan Project. His reputation was expected to lend the study immediate credibility.

Administrative leadership fell to Robert Low, an assistant dean at the university who served as the project coordinator. Low was responsible for the day-to-day management of the staff and the organization of the research efforts. The staff consisted of a diverse group of scientists, including psychologists, astronomers, and physicists. Notable members included psychologist David Saunders, astronomer William Hartmann, and chemist Roy Craig.

The project faced challenges from the start. Condon, despite his scientific credentials, had little prior knowledge of the UFO phenomenon and publicly expressed skepticism early in the study. In January 1967, shortly after the project began, Condon told a reporter that he thought the government should not study UFOs because the subject was “nonsense,” adding that he was not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year. This attitude set a tone that would later fuel accusations that the study was not truly open-minded.

The staff was divided into teams responsible for different aspects of the investigation. Some were tasked with analyzing historical cases from Project Blue Book files, while others were prepared to deploy to the field to investigate current sightings. The project also engaged outside consultants, such as the Stanford Research Institute, to assist with specialized tasks like radar analysis. The team had to build their methodology from scratch, as no standard scientific protocol existed for investigating transient aerial anomalies reported by non-experts.

Methodology and Scope

The mandate of the Condon Committee was to determine if UFO reports contained any scientific value. To achieve this, the committee adopted a multi-faceted approach that included the analysis of physical evidence, the review of historical data, and the investigation of new cases.

A significant portion of the work involved sifting through the archives of Project Blue Book and civilian organizations like the National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO). From thousands of reports, the committee selected 59 specific cases for detailed analysis. These cases were chosen because they contained higher-quality data, such as radar confirmation, photographic evidence, or multiple credible witnesses.

The committee established an “Early Warning Network” to allow field teams to respond rapidly to new sightings. The hope was that scientists could arrive on the scene while the event was still unfolding or shortly after, allowing for the collection of fresh physical evidence. Field kits were assembled, containing Geiger counters, cameras, surveying equipment, and sample collection tools. In practice the team rarely arrived in time to witness an object firsthand. Most field investigations turned into forensic exercises, involving the interviewing of witnesses and the examination of the environment for alleged landing traces.

Physical evidence analysis was a major component of the methodology. The project examined photographs and motion picture films using photogrammetric techniques to determine the size, distance, and speed of alleged objects. They also analyzed material samples, such as metal fragments claimed to be from UFOs. In one instance, a piece of magnesium from Brazil was analyzed to see if its isotopic composition differed from terrestrial magnesium. The results showed it was terrestrial, but the willingness to test such claims demonstrated the project’s technical approach.

The committee also focused heavily on the psychology of perception. A significant section of the final report was dedicated to explaining how optical illusions, atmospheric conditions, and the limitations of the human eye could lead to misidentifications. Experiments were conducted to test how well witnesses could estimate the size and distance of unknown objects. This psychological focus was intended to filter out the “noise” of human error, which the committee believed accounted for the vast majority of reports.

Experts from various fields were brought in to testify or provide written analyses. Atmospheric physicists explained how temperature inversions could create false radar targets. Astronomers detailed how bright planets like Venus or Jupiter were frequently reported as UFOs. The scope of the study was intentionally broad, attempting to cover every possible prosaic explanation before considering the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

The Controversy and Internal Dissent

While the project was presented to the public as an objective scientific inquiry, internal tensions told a different story. The central point of contention was a memorandum written by project coordinator Robert Low in August 1966, before the university had even officially signed the contract. Known as the “Trick Memo,” this document would later become the smoking gun for critics who believed the study was a sham.

In the memo, Low addressed the difficulty of conducting a scientific study of a phenomenon that might not exist. He suggested to university administrators that the study would likely result in a negative finding. Low wrote that the study would be conducted almost entirely by non-believers who, though they could not prove a negative result, could add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. He then proposed a strategy: “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 non-believers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.”

This memo remained buried in the project files until July 1967, when it was discovered by staff member Roy Craig while looking for other documents. Craig showed it to David Saunders, a principal investigator on the team. Saunders and another colleague, Norman Levine, were deeply troubled by the memo’s implications. They felt it revealed a pre-existing bias that compromised the scientific integrity of the entire project.

Saunders and Levine shared the memo with James E. McDonald, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Arizona and a vocal proponent of the idea that UFOs were a serious scientific problem. McDonald was horrified and confronted Condon and Low. The revelation of the memo caused a firestorm within the committee. Condon, furious that the memo had been shared outside the project, fired Saunders and Levine for “incompetence” and “insubordination.”

The firing of the two scientists and the existence of the Trick Memo were leaked to the press. In May 1968, Look magazine published an article titled “Flying Saucer Fiasco,” which characterized the Colorado Project as a “$500,000 trick.” The article exposed the internal strife and the existence of the Low memo to a national audience. This publicity severely damaged the credibility of the project before the final report was even released. It created a split in the scientific community, with some rallying behind Condon’s authority and others viewing the study as a politically motivated whitewash designed to help the Air Force wash its hands of the UFO problem.

The controversy also led to a severing of ties with civilian UFO groups. NICAP, which had initially cooperated with the committee by sharing its case files, withdrew its support. Donald Keyhoe, the director of NICAP, accused Condon of failing to investigate the most significant cases and of focusing on easily explained sightings to pad the statistics.

Analysis of the Report Findings

The final report, released in January 1969, was a massive document spanning nearly 1,500 pages. It contained the detailed results of the 59 case studies, essays on the history of UFOs, analyses of perceptual problems, and a summary section written by Edward Condon.

The core findings, as presented in Condon’s summary, were threefold. First, the report concluded that there was no evidence to support the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Condon stated that after examining the data, the committee found no convincing scientific evidence that any UFOs were spacecraft from other civilizations. Second, the report stated that UFOs did not present a threat to national security. There was no indication that these objects were secret weapons of foreign powers or that they posed a danger to the United States. Third, and perhaps most consequentially, Condon recommended that further extensive scientific study of UFOs could not be justified. He argued that the past 21 years of study had added nothing to scientific knowledge and that future study was unlikely to be fruitful.

However, a careful reading of the full report revealed a puzzling disconnect between Condon’s dismissive summary and the actual case analyses contained in the body of the text. While many cases were indeed explained as natural phenomena or man-made objects, a significant number – roughly 30% of the specific cases examined – were left labeled as “unidentified” or “unexplained.”

One such case was the Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident in the United Kingdom in 1956. This case involved both visual sightings by military personnel and confirmation by ground-based and airborne radar. The report’s analyst admitted that “this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files.” The rational behavior of the UFO was described as being beyond the capability of any known aircraft, yet this case was glossed over in Condon’s final conclusions.

Another significant inclusion was the McMinnville, Oregon, photographs from 1950. A farmer and his wife had taken two clear photos of a disc-shaped object. The committee’s photographic analyst, William Hartmann, conducted a rigorous study and concluded that “this is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical, appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses.” Despite this stunning admission in the body of the report, the general conclusion remained that there was no evidence of extraordinary objects.

The report also examined footage taken in Great Falls, Montana, in 1950, showing two bright objects moving across the sky. The analysis ruled out birds, balloons, and meteors, and noted that the data was consistent with aircraft, but the analyst could not identify any aircraft that were in the area at the time.

Astronaut sightings were also reviewed. The report discussed sightings by the Gemini 4 and Gemini 7 crews. In the Gemini 4 incident, astronaut James McDivitt saw a cylindrical object with an antenna-like protrusion. The Condon Report suggested this was likely the Titan booster stage, a theory McDivitt himself had disputed because the booster should have been miles away. In the Gemini 7 case, Frank Borman and Jim Lovell reported a “bogey” flying in formation with them. The report dismissed this as likely debris or the booster, despite the astronauts’ insistence on the object’s controlled behavior.

Critics pointed out that Condon’s summary acted as a filter, removing the nuance and the unsolved mysteries present in the staff’s work. The media and the government largely read only the summary. The headline finding – that UFOs were not worth studying – became the official narrative.

Reaction and Aftermath

Before its public release, the Condon Report was submitted to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review. This was a standard procedure to ensure the scientific quality of the work. The NAS panel, composed of 11 scientists, reviewed the report and issued a stamp of approval. They agreed with Condon’s methodology and his conclusions, stating that the study was a “creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem.” The NAS endorsement gave the report immense weight and insulated it from immediate political attack.

The reaction from the broader scientific community was mixed. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) formed a subcommittee to review the report. Unlike the NAS, the AIAA noted the discrepancy between the “unexplained” cases in the body of the text and the negative summary. They argued that a phenomenon with such a high percentage of unexplained high-quality cases deserved continued, albeit low-level, scientific attention. However, their voice was drowned out by the volume of the Condon Report’s dismissal.

J. Allen Hynek, the former Air Force consultant who had pushed for the study, was significantly disappointed. He published a critique titled The UFO Experience, in which he excoriated the Condon Report for what he saw as its unscientific approach. Hynek argued that the committee had focused on easy targets while ignoring the robust data that challenged their preconceived notions. He famously compared the report to a prosecutor who ignores the evidence that might exonerate the defendant.

For the United States Air Force, the report was exactly what they had hoped for. Using the Condon Report’s recommendations as their shield, the Air Force announced the termination of Project Blue Book. On December 17, 1969, the Secretary of the Air Force issued the order, stating that the continuation of the project could not be justified on the grounds of national security or scientific interest. The files of Project Blue Book were retired to the archives, and the Air Force officially exited the UFO business.

Legacy

The legacy of the Condon Report is defined by its long-term impact on the credibility of UFO research. By declaring the subject scientifically barren, the report created a stigma that lasted for decades. Scientists who expressed interest in the topic risked their funding and their reputations. The “Condon conclusion” became the standard answer given by government agencies to any public inquiry about UFOs: the matter had been studied, and there was nothing there.

This effect stifled mainstream academic research into aerial anomalies for nearly fifty years. While civilian groups continued to investigate, they did so without the resources or the institutional support of universities or the government. The subject was relegated to the realm of pseudoscience and entertainment.

However, the report did not kill the phenomenon itself. Sightings continued, and the questions remained. In recent years, the context has shifted once again. The establishment of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and the release of verified Navy videos have reignited the conversation. Modern investigations often grapple with the same data problems the Condon Committee faced – ambiguous sensor data and reliable witness testimony that lacks physical proof.

Retrospective analyses of the Condon Report often highlight it as a case study in the intersection of science and politics. It demonstrates how a scientific study can be shaped by its administrative goals – in this case, the Air Force’s desire to end a public relations headache. The “Trick Memo” remains a cautionary tale about the importance of transparency and objectivity in scientific inquiry.

Summary

The Condon Report stands as a monumental document in the history of ufology. Commissioned during a time of high public anxiety and intense speculation, it was intended to provide a definitive scientific answer to the UFO question. Directed by Edward Condon, the study employed a wide range of scientific methodologies, from photogrammetry to psychological experiments, to analyze the phenomenon.

While the report succeeded in providing the Air Force with the rationale to shut down Project Blue Book, it failed to settle the scientific debate. The internal controversies, particularly the revelation of the “Trick Memo,” and the stark contrast between the dismissive summary and the intriguing case details, have kept the report a subject of criticism for over half a century. In the end, the Condon Report did not solve the mystery of UFOs; rather, it pushed the mystery out of the halls of government and science, leaving it to survive in the public imagination until a new generation of researchers began to look at the skies with fresh eyes.

Appendix: Top 10 Questions Answered in This Article

What was the primary purpose of the Condon Report?

The Condon Report was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force to conduct an independent scientific investigation into UFOs. Its goal was to determine if UFO sightings posed a threat to national security or offered any scientific value that justified further government study.

Who led the study and where was it conducted?

The study was led by distinguished physicist Edward Condon and was conducted at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The project ran from 1966 to 1968 and involved a team of psychologists, physicists, and astronomers.

What was the “Trick Memo” controversy?

The “Trick Memo” was an internal document written by project coordinator Robert Low that suggested the study could appear objective to the public while being conducted by non-believers who expected negative results. Its discovery led to accusations of bias and the firing of two staff members who leaked it.

Did the report find any evidence of extraterrestrial life?

No, the report concluded that there was no convincing scientific evidence that UFOs were spacecraft from other civilizations. Edward Condon’s summary explicitly stated that the extraterrestrial hypothesis had no support in the data they examined.

What happened to Project Blue Book after the report was released?

Using the findings of the Condon Report as justification, the Air Force terminated Project Blue Book in December 1969. This effectively ended the U.S. government’s public investigation of UFOs for decades.

Were there any unexplained cases in the Condon Report?

Yes, despite the negative summary, roughly 30% of the specific cases examined in the report remained unexplained. Notable examples included the Lakenheath radar-visual incident and the McMinnville photographs, which analysts admitted were consistent with extraordinary objects.

How did the scientific community react to the report?

The reaction was mixed; the National Academy of Sciences endorsed the report and its methodology, giving it scientific weight. However, individual scientists like J. Allen Hynek and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics criticized the report for ignoring its own positive data.

What methodology did the committee use to study UFOs?

The committee used a mix of historical case review, field investigations with “Early Warning” teams, and physical evidence analysis. They employed techniques like photogrammetry to analyze film and psychological experiments to understand witness perception.

Why is the Condon Report considered controversial today?

It is controversial because of the disconnect between the dismissive summary written by Condon and the detailed evidence provided by his staff. Critics argue that the conclusions were politically motivated to help the Air Force exit the UFO business rather than being a purely scientific result.

What was the impact of the Condon Report on UFO research?

The report created a long-lasting stigma around the scientific study of UFOs, discouraging academic funding and serious research. It relegated the topic to the fringe for nearly 50 years until recent government initiatives renewed interest in the field.

Appendix: Top 10 Frequently Searched Questions Answered in This Article

What is the Condon Report?

The Condon Report is the informal name for the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, a government-funded review conducted by the University of Colorado in the late 1960s. It is famous for concluding that UFOs were not worth further scientific study.

Who was Edward Condon?

Edward Condon was a prominent American physicist and former director of the National Bureau of Standards who led the Colorado Project. He was known for his work in quantum mechanics and his role in the Manhattan Project before taking on the UFO study.

Why was Project Blue Book cancelled?

Project Blue Book was cancelled because the Condon Report concluded that UFOs did not threaten national security and that further study would not advance scientific knowledge. The Air Force used these findings to justify closing the project in 1969.

What did the Condon Report say about the McMinnville photos?

The report’s analysis of the McMinnville photos was surprisingly positive, stating that the geometric and physical factors were consistent with a metallic, disk-shaped object flying in the air. This finding contradicted the report’s general conclusion that there was no evidence for UFOs.

What was the budget for the Condon Committee?

The initial funding for the project was approximately $300,000, but the total cost eventually rose to over $500,000. The funds were provided by the United States Air Force to ensure a thorough independent review.

Did the Condon Report investigate astronaut sightings?

Yes, the report investigated sightings by Gemini astronauts, including James McDivitt and Frank Borman. The report generally dismissed these sightings as debris, rocket boosters, or optical illusions, often disputing the astronauts’ own descriptions.

What is the “Trick Memo”?

The “Trick Memo” is a controversial document written by Robert Low that discussed how to make the study appear objective to the public while anticipating a negative result. It is often cited as evidence that the committee was biased against UFOs from the beginning.

Did the National Academy of Sciences approve the Condon Report?

Yes, a panel from the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Condon Report and fully endorsed its methodology and findings. This endorsement was vital in allowing the Air Force to accept the report’s recommendations without further political backlash.

How many cases did the Condon Committee study?

The committee reviewed thousands of reports from Air Force and civilian files but selected only 59 specific cases for detailed scientific analysis. These included photographic cases, radar-visual cases, and reports with high witness credibility.

What is the legacy of the Condon Report?

The report’s legacy is the scientific stigmatization of UFOs, which halted mainstream research for decades. It remains a pivotal document that defined the government’s dismissive stance on the phenomenon until the modern era of UAP investigation.

KEYWORDS: Condon Report, Project Blue Book, Edward Condon, University of Colorado UFO Project, UFO history, scientific study of UFOs, J. Allen Hynek, Robert Low trick memo, 1969 UFO report, National Academy of Sciences UFO review, termination of Project Blue Book, McMinnville UFO photos, Lakenheath UFO incident, Gemini astronaut UFO sightings, aerial phenomena research history.