Document · 31 October 1968
Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Condon Report, 1968)
Also known as Condon Report, Condon report, Colorado report, University of Colorado report, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects
The final report of the University of Colorado's Air Force-funded UFO study, directed by the physicist Edward U. Condon, transmitted to the Secretary of the Air Force on 31 October 1968 and made available to the National Academy of Sciences' review panel on 15 November 1968. It runs to some 1,400 pages: Condon's conclusions and recommendations, a summary of the study, field studies, photographic, physical, optical and radar analyses, an attitude survey, 59 case studies, a history of UFOs and chapters on perception, optics, radar, balloons and statistics.
Condon concluded that 21 years of UFO study had added nothing to scientific knowledge and that further extensive study probably could not be justified on scientific grounds, though well-defined proposals should still be supported; that UFO reports posed no defense problem; that Blue Book was not needed for the defense function; and that there was no evidence of secrecy. Its case studies leave a few events unexplained, and the Lakenheath–Bentwaters case was judged probably to involve "at least one genuine UFO".
A National Academy of Sciences panel endorsed the report in January 1969, and the Air Force cited both in closing Project Blue Book that December. AARO notes that some scientists, among them J. Allen Hynek, criticised the report; the project itself had been accused of bias before it reported (see the Condon Committee file).
Sources: Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (1968): letter of transmittal, Section I, Section II and Case 2 (NCAS transcription, with the permission of the University of Colorado) · NAS review (1969) · AARO Historical Record Report, Vol. 1 (2024)
Facts and claims
- documented The University of Colorado's president, J. R. Smiley, transmitted the final report to Secretary of the Air Force Harold Brown on 31 October 1968 under Contract No. F44620-67-C-0035, writing that “There has never been the slightest suggestion of any effort on the part of the Air Force to influence either the conduct of the investigation or the content of this report.” Source: files.ncas.org (archived)
- documented Condon's general 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. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.” Source: files.ncas.org (archived)
- documented He adds that “any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported”, but that the federal government should not set up a major new agency for the scientific study of UFOs. Source: files.ncas.org (archived)
- documented On defense: “We know of no reason to question the finding of the Air Force that the whole class of UFO reports so far considered does not pose a defense problem.” The defense function, it says, could be performed within existing intelligence and surveillance operations “without the continuance of a special unit such as Project Blue Book”. Source: files.ncas.org (archived)
- documented On secrecy: “We have no evidence of secrecy concerning UFO reports.” It also recommends that teachers “refrain from giving students credit for school work based on their reading of the presently available UFO books and magazine articles.” Source: files.ncas.org (archived)
- documented The summary of the study says the project decided against a publicity campaign for more reports “because about 90% of all UFO reports prove to be quite plausibly related to ordinary objects.” Source: files.ncas.org (archived)
- documented Its Case 2, the Lakenheath–Bentwaters radar-visual sightings of 1956, ends: “In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high.” Source: files.ncas.org (archived)
- documented AARO's 2024 historical review quotes the general conclusion and notes that, after the report “was criticized by some scientists—including Project BLUE BOOK's Dr. Hynek”, a National Academy of Sciences panel examined its rigor, methodology and conclusions. Source: AARO Historical Record Report, Volume 1
Connected files
People
- Edward U. Condon (authored by) — Scientific director; Section I, “Conclusions and Recommendations”, is his
- Harold Brown (submitted to) — Transmitted to the Secretary of the Air Force on 31 October 1968
- J. Allen Hynek (criticised by) — AARO: the report was criticized by some scientists, including Project BLUE BOOK's Dr. Hynek
Programs
- Project Blue Book (recommended end of) — The defense function could be performed “without the continuance of a special unit such as Project Blue Book”
- Condon Committee (University of Colorado UFO Project) (documents)
Incidents
- Lakenheath–Bentwaters radar-visual incident (analysed) — Case 2: “the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high”
- RB-47 shadowed by a light and a radar source over the southern U.S. (17 July 1957) (analysed) — Case 5: “The phenomenon remains unidentified.”
- Falcon Lake: Stefan Michalak's reported landing and burns (Manitoba, 1967) (analysed) — Case 22, which judged that the case “does not offer probative information regarding inconventional craft”
- Haneda AFB radar-visual sighting (analysed) — Section III, Chapter 5: most probably a bright star distorted by an optical effect, and unusual radar propagation
- Deception Island, Antarctica: lights seen from Argentine, Chilean and British bases (documents) — Roy Craig's chapter on indirect physical evidence examined the Orcadas magnetograms of 3 July 1965
Documents
- Bolender memo (cited in)
- Review of the University of Colorado Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences (1969) (reviewed by)
- State Department cables RABAT 5209, STATE 244918 and STATE 247538: Morocco's request for information on UFOs, September–October 1976 (cited in) — The reply cites the 1969 Condon study as an extensive investigation of the subject
- Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: the Sturrock panel (Pocantico workshop, 1997; report 1998) (reviewed by) — The panel reviewed some of Condon's 1968 conclusions, agreeing that nothing had yet added to scientific knowledge
Mentioned in this file
- AARO Historical Record Report, Volume 1 (Document)
- All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (Program)
Mentioned in documents and records
- The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry
- UFO's: A Scientific Debate
- Hearing transcript: Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects — House Committee on Science and Astronautics (July 29, 1968)
More documents
- Hearing transcript: Unidentified Flying Objects — House Armed Services Committee (April 5, 1966)
- Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project “SIGN” (Air Materiel Command, Technical Report No. F-TR-2274-IA, February 1949)
- Management of Public Reporting of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in Canada: Report of the Sky Canada Project (June 2025)
- Project Blue Book case file: Forbes AFB, Kansas, July 1957 (RB-47)
- Robertson Panel report (Durant Report): Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects
- Project Blue Book case file: Haneda AFB, Japan, August 1952