The Condon Committee was the nickname for the University of Colorado UFO Project, a group supported by the United States Air Force from 1966 to 1968 at the University of Colorado. The group studied unidentified flying objects under the leadership of physicist Edward Condon. Its findings were published in a report titled Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, commonly called the Condon Report, in 1968.
The group reviewed hundreds of UFO files from the Air Force's Project Blue Book and from civilian organizations, including the National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO). They also studied UFO sightings reported during the project's time. Their final report stated that studying UFOs was unlikely to lead to major scientific discoveries.
Scientists and academic journals had different opinions about the report. Some believed it reduced interest in UFO research among academics. A major critic of the report said it was the most important public document about the scientific study of UFOs. This means that all later scientific work on UFOs has referenced the Condon Report.
Background
Beginning in 1947, the U.S. Air Force started studying UFOs through a series of projects. These projects were first called Project Sign, then Project Grudge, and finally Project Blue Book. Many people, including government officials and scientists, were interested in UFOs. However, by the 1960s, Blue Book faced criticism. Some people claimed the research was not reliable or that the Air Force was hiding information. The Air Force wanted to stop its studies but feared that ending them might make people think they were hiding something. No other government group was willing to take over UFO research because the topic was so controversial.
In 1965, after many UFO reports were made, astronomer J. Allen Hynek, who worked with Blue Book, wrote to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. He suggested forming a group to review Blue Book’s work. The board agreed, and a committee led by Brian O’Brien met for one day in February 1966. The committee recommended that UFO studies should be done more thoroughly and that the Air Force should work with universities to study UFOs. They suggested studying about 100 well-documented UFO sightings each year, with about 10 days of research for each case.
In April 1966, during a Congressional hearing, Air Force Secretary Harold Brown defended the UFO studies. He supported the idea of more research. Hynek also called for a group of scientists to study UFOs carefully. Soon after, the Air Force asked universities to help with UFO research. However, many schools refused. Some, like Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, did not want to be involved. Eventually, physicist Edward Condon of the University of Colorado agreed to lead the study.
Condon was a well-known scientist. His past experiences with government loyalty checks made him respected among scientists. A university official, Robert J. Low, said the project was accepted by the University of Colorado only after much discussion. Some believed the Air Force’s offer of $313,000 for the study influenced the decision, but Condon said the money was not enough for a project lasting over a year with a team of more than a dozen people. Funding later increased to over $500,000.
In October 1966, the University of Colorado agreed to lead the UFO study, with Condon as director. Other scientists, including astronomers, psychologists, and engineers, joined the team. Public reaction to the project was mostly positive. Some scientists, like James E. McDonald, were encouraged that a respected scientist like Condon was studying UFOs. A magazine called The Nation said that if Condon’s team did not find evidence of aliens, they would face criticism.
Committee work
In November 1966, retired USMC Major Donald Keyhoe and Richard H. Hall, members of NICAP, gave a presentation to the panel. They agreed to share NICAP's research files and improve the collection of UFO reports. The committee also received help from APRO, another civilian UFO research group. The committee worked slowly, facing disagreements about how to use funds and how to conduct research. By hiring people with no previous experience studying UFOs, the committee lacked the necessary knowledge. One member suggested using stereo cameras with diffraction gratings to study the light from UFOs. This idea had been tried about fifteen years earlier, following a suggestion by Joseph Kaplan in 1954, but it was later considered impractical after cameras were sent to Air Force bases. As the committee began its work, members often worked alone without coordinating with each other. They used different methods, especially when considering the possibility that UFOs might be related to life beyond Earth (ETH).
In late January 1967, Condon spoke during a lecture, saying the government should not study UFOs because the topic was "nonsense." He added, "but I'm not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year." A NICAP member resigned in protest, and Saunders expressed concern that NICAP's withdrawal would remove a valuable source of UFO case files and cause negative publicity.
In July 1967, James E. McDonald, who believed UFO sightings were real, learned from a committee member about a memo Low wrote on August 9, 1966. In the memo, Low assured two University of Colorado administrators that the study would show UFO sightings had no real basis. He wrote that the study would be led by people who did not believe in UFOs, and they would gather evidence to prove UFO sightings were not real. He also said the study would appear objective to the public but would seem biased to scientists. McDonald found a copy of the memo in the project's files and sent it to Condon, quoting parts of it.
In response to the memo, on April 30, 1968, NICAP ended its partnership with the committee. Keyhoe shared copies of Low's memo with others. A magazine article titled "Flying Saucer Fiasco" by John G. Fuller, published in May 1968, included interviews with Saunders and Levine and described the project as a "$500,000 trick." Fuller was a journalist who believed UFO sightings were real. Condon said the article contained "falsehoods and misrepresentations." Scientific journals reported on the controversy. A publication called Industrial Research reprinted Low's memo, while Scientific Research interviewed Saunders and Levine, who said they were considering suing Condon for firing them unfairly. They claimed Condon used "unscientific methods" to lead the committee. Condon called the accusation "libelous" and threatened to sue Saunders and Levine. When the American Association for the Advancement of Science covered the controversy in its journal Science, Condon first agreed to speak but later refused. He resigned from the AAAS in protest when the article was published without his input. Congressional Representative J. Edward Roush said the article raised "grave doubts" about the project's scientific value and objectivity. He asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the study, but the GAO refused. Roush held a hearing focused on critics of the project and later joined NICAP's board. Low left the project in May 1968.
Some later critics said the memo was not significant. Committee member David Saunders wrote that calling Low a "plotter or conspirator" was unfair. Hynek said Low wanted his university to get the contract and convince the administration to accept it. Project investigator Roy Craig said the memo did not bother him because Condon had not seen it for eighteen months and it did not reflect his views. In the project's Final Report, Condon wrote that the memo's focus on the "psychology and sociology" of UFO witnesses showed Low misunderstood the project.
Even after NICAP left the project, members of its Early Warning Network continued to report UFO sightings to investigators, as did journalists.
Scientists who expected the committee to oppose government UFO research published their own refutation before the Final Report was released. The book UFO's? Yes! by Saunders questioned whether the CIA wanted to distract the public from UFOs. It used three cases to argue for extraterrestrial involvement. Project investigator Roy Craig later called each case "utter nonsense," "highly suspect," and "unexplained but very weak."
Committee Report
The committee gave its report to the Air Force in November 1968. The Air Force released it in January 1969. The Report, which had 1,485 pages in hardcover books and 965 pages in paperback books, split UFO cases into five groups: old UFO reports from before the committee met, new reports, photographic cases, radar and visual cases, and UFOs reported by astronauts. Some UFO cases belonged to more than one group. Condon wrote 6 pages of "conclusions and recommendations," a 43-page "summary," and a 50-page history of UFO events and research over the past 20 years.
In his "Conclusions and Recommendations," Condon wrote: "Our general conclusion is that nothing from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years has added to scientific knowledge. After carefully looking at the available information, we believe further large studies of UFOs probably cannot be justified if the goal is to advance science." He also suggested that the government should not create a program to investigate UFO reports. He explained that scientists must each examine the record themselves, and that the Report’s recommendation against further research "may not be true forever." He advised that government groups and private organizations "should be open to considering UFO research ideas…without bias. Each case should be studied carefully on its own." The Report also noted that there are gaps in scientific knowledge about "atmospheric optics, including radio wave propagation, and atmospheric electricity" that could benefit from more UFO research.
The Report included 59 case studies, though their locations were changed for legal reasons. New York Times science editor Walter Sullivan, who wrote an introduction for the published version of the Report, said the series "reads like a modern, real-life collection of Sherlock Holmes episodes. The cases range from very puzzling to clearly false. The reader learns about the scientific method, even though the cases often make it hard to use logical analysis." Six chapters covered studies of physical evidence, such as electromagnetic effects, visual and radar images. One chapter discussed observations made by U.S. astronauts.
In Case 2 of Section IV, Chapter 2, the Report described the 1956 Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident: "Although natural or conventional explanations cannot be ruled out, the chance that such an explanation is correct seems low. The chance that at least one real UFO was involved seems fairly high."
Before the Report was finished, the Air Force asked the National Academy of Sciences to "check the scope, methods, and findings" of the committee. A group led by Yale astronomer Gerald M. Clemence studied the Report for six weeks and concluded that "based on current knowledge, the least likely explanation for UFOs is that they are from intelligent beings outside Earth" and that "no high priority in UFO investigations is needed based on data from the past 20 years."
Because of the Report’s findings, the Air Force closed Project Blue Book, which had been started in March 1952, on December 17, 1969.
Assessments
The Report received different opinions from scientists and academic journals, while most news media praised it highly. Many newspapers, magazines, and journals published reviews or editorials that supported the Condon Report. Some compared continuing belief in UFOs to believing the Earth is flat. Others believed interest in UFOs would decrease and become forgotten in a few generations. Science, the official publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, stated, "The Colorado Study is the most detailed and well-done investigation of the unclear UFO phenomenon ever conducted."
The March 8, 1969 issue of Nature gave a mostly positive review of the Condon Report but questioned why so much effort was spent on the topic: "The Colorado project is a major achievement, but perhaps the effort was not well used. It is not like comparing it to old questions about how many angels could fit on a pin’s point; it is more like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the nut would not be affected." On January 8, 1969, the New York Times reported: "U.F.O. Finding: No Visits From Afar." The article said the project’s final report on U.F.O.s "found no evidence that they are spacecraft from outside Earth."
Critics repeated their arguments but did not gain government support. One described the Report as "a disorganized collection of unrelated articles, only a small part of which discussed UFOs." Hynek called the Report "long, unfocused, and poorly organized" and noted that "less than half…focused on investigating UFO reports." In the April 14, 1969 issue of Scientific Research, Robert L. M. Baker, Jr. wrote that the Condon Committee's Report "supports scientific research in many areas." In the December 1969 issue of Physics Today, committee consultant Gerald Rothberg wrote that he studied about 100 UFO cases, three or four of which were unclear. He believed this "remaining mystery" showed a scientific debate. Critics claimed Condon’s summaries of cases were incorrect or misleading, with unclear reports hidden among confirmed cases.
In December 1969, physicist James E. McDonald called the Report "inadequate" and said "it examined only a small part of the most puzzling UFO reports from the past two decades, and its scientific reasoning was not strong enough." In a 1969 issue of the American Journal of Physics, astronomer Thornton Page (who believed the phenomenon had a social cause) wrote: "Smart non-experts can (and do) show the mistake in Condon’s conclusion based on a small and chosen sample. Even in this sample, a clear pattern exists; it is ignored by the 'authorities,' who then worsen their mistake by suggesting no more data should be collected." Page had been part of the Robertson Panel, which advised debunking UFOs to reduce public interest.
In November 1970, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics agreed with Condon’s view that little useful information had been found in scientific UFO studies, but "did not find evidence in the report to support Condon’s prediction that future studies would not yield scientific value."
Astronomer J. Allen Hynek wrote that "The Condon Report settled nothing." He called Condon’s introduction "biased" and noted that "the report ignored a mystery: the committee could not explain more than a quarter of the cases studied." Hynek argued that Condon did not understand the scope of the problem he was studying and disagreed with the idea that only extraterrestrial life could explain UFO activity. By focusing only on this idea, the Report "did not determine whether UFOs posed a scientific or social issue."
Astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock wrote that "criticisms came from scientists who studied UFOs, while praise came from those who did not." As an example, Sturrock mentioned a case where a UFO supposedly traveled faster than sound but did not create a sonic boom. He noted, "We should not assume a more advanced civilization could not find a way to move faster than sound without making a sonic boom."