Document · 6 January 1969
Review of the University of Colorado Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences (1969)
Also known as NAS review, National Academy of Sciences review, NAS review of the Condon Report, Clemence panel
The National Academy of Sciences' review of the Condon Report, by an eleven-member panel chaired by Gerald M. Clemence of Yale University. The Academy had agreed in October 1966 to review the University of Colorado study on completion; the panel read the report from 15 November 1968 and concluded its deliberations on 6 January 1969. It was asked only to judge the report's scope, methodology and findings, not to study UFOs itself or hear advocates.
It found the scope adequate and the methodology well chosen, accepted the findings on secrecy and defence, and concurred that Blue Book was not needed and that UFO investigation deserved no high priority. It noted that some sightings remain unexplained but judged extraterrestrial visitation "the least likely explanation". The Bolender memo of October 1969 cites the review, with the report, in recommending the end of Project Blue Book.
The copy on file is a scan released in the Department of Defense FOIA Reading Room, where it appears as an attachment (pages 4–10 of "Attachment 2") to a later compilation; the last page of the file, a directory of UFO organisations, belongs to that compilation, not to the review.
Sources: NAS panel review (1969), DoD FOIA Reading Room copy (local copy) · Condon Report, Preface (NCAS transcription) · Bolender memo (1969)
Facts and claims
- documented The panel, appointed in late October and early November 1968 and chaired by Gerald M. Clemence of Yale University, was charged with an independent assessment of the scope, methodology and findings of the University of Colorado study as reflected in its report; it began when the report became available on 15 November 1968 and met on 2 December and 6 January 1969 to conclude its deliberations. Source: doc-nas-review-condon-1969.pdf
- documented On method it wrote: “We think the methodology and approach were well chosen, in accordance with accepted standards of scientific investigation.” It noted that nearly all cases fell into categories such as pranks, hoaxes and misinterpretations, and that a few events which did not fit were left unexplained. Source: doc-nas-review-condon-1969.pdf
- documented It concurred with the report's recommendation that the Department of Defense handle UFO reports in its normal surveillance operations without a special unit such as Project Blue Book, and with the recommendation that no high priority in UFO investigations was warranted. Source: doc-nas-review-condon-1969.pdf
- documented Its conclusion: “The Report recognizes that there remain UFO sightings that are not easily explained.” But it found so many possible directions for an explanation that there seemed no reason to attribute them to an extraterrestrial source without much more convincing evidence: “On the basis of present knowledge the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings.” Source: doc-nas-review-condon-1969.pdf
Connected files
Documents
- Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Condon Report, 1968) (reviewed)
- Bolender memo (cited in)
Programs
Mentioned in this file
- Project Blue Book (Program)
- Department of War (Department of Defense) (Organization)
More documents
- Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project “SIGN” (Air Materiel Command, Technical Report No. F-TR-2274-IA, February 1949)
- Hearing transcript: Unidentified Flying Objects — House Armed Services Committee (April 5, 1966)
- Robertson Panel report (Durant Report): Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects
- Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: the Sturrock panel (Pocantico workshop, 1997; report 1998)
- The Roswell Report: Case Closed (U.S. Air Force, 1997), summary
- The Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (U.S. Air Force, 1995)