Condon Committee 1966: the study the Air Force ordered, and the cases it left open

In 1966 the U.S. Air Force chose the University of Colorado for an outside scientific study of UFO reports, after its own advisers called the problem "99% public relations". Edward Condon concluded that further extensive study probably could not be justified, and the Air Force cited the report when it closed Project Blue Book in 1969.

40.0076° N · 105.2659° W · University of Colorado, Boulder · 1966–1968

Source: War.gov · Condon Report

Why the Air Force wanted outside scientists

On 28 September 1965 the Air Force's Director of Information, Major General E. B. LeBailly, asked the Scientific Advisory Board to review Project Blue Book. His memorandum said that as of 30 June 1965 the Air Force had investigated 9,267 reports, of which 663 could not be explained. It had found no evidence of a threat to national security, but many of the unexplained reports came from credible witnesses, and he asked for a panel of physical and social scientists to review the project's resources, methods and findings ^[1].

The Board's ad hoc committee, chaired by Dr. Brian O'Brien, reported in March 1966. A memorandum for record of 20 April 1966 notes that on 5 April Secretary of the Air Force Harold Brown told the Chief of Staff that the committee's recommendations should be accepted and arrangements made for a scientific team to investigate certain selected sightings in depth ^[2].

many of the reports that cannot be explained have come from intelligent and technically well qualified individuals whose integrity cannot be doubted.

— Maj. Gen. E. B. LeBailly, memorandum to the Scientific Advisory Board, 28 September 1965 [1]

Choosing a university

The same memorandum records a meeting in the Pentagon on 19 April 1966 to work out how to carry out the recommendation. There was no agreement on whether the contract should go to a university or to individuals connected with one. The group suggested the University of Dayton as the probable lead university because it was close to the Foreign Technology Division, which would keep managing Blue Book. Colorado appeared only in a list of other universities that could give regional coverage ^[2].

The meeting's list of open questions is frank. The objective was impartial scientists from schools with good reputations who had never been involved with UFOs. It was proposed and accepted that J. Allen Hynek and Donald Menzel form the nucleus of a consultant team to help choose which sightings the university team should investigate. Members also debated whether a public information officer, perhaps incognito, should join the first few teams ^[3].

Since the problem is 99% public relations

— Memorandum for record of the 19 April 1966 meeting, USAF Scientific Advisory Board [3]

The Colorado project and the Low memorandum

In the end the contract went to the University of Colorado. Condon wrote that its details were worked out with the staff of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research in September 1966, and that it was publicly announced on 7 October 1966, with work to begin soon after 1 November ^[6]. According to the report's preface, the National Academy of Sciences agreed in October 1966 to review the study when it was finished, and that same month Condon gathered a small staff on the university campus in Boulder ^[4].

The project's best-known controversy began before it existed. Condon wrote that several faculty members had grave misgivings about the university taking on so controversial a subject. Before a meeting with Air Force staff on 10 August 1966, Robert J. Low, then assistant dean of the graduate school, set down his thoughts in a memorandum dated 9 August 1966. Condon wrote that a copy was later stolen from Low's files, and that portions printed in an article by John G. Fuller misread it as evidence of a plan to give the Air Force the result it wanted ^[5].

Condon's answer, in the report itself, was that Low's suggestion to stress the psychology of witnesses ran exactly contrary to what the project actually did, which was to concentrate on physical phenomena. He also stated that he did not know the memorandum existed until 18 months after it was written ^[6].

to stress investigation, not of physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing

— Robert J. Low, memorandum of 9 August 1966, as quoted by Condon in the final report [6]

What the report concluded

Condon's own summary, which opens the report, is short. Nothing in 21 years of UFO study had added to scientific knowledge, and further extensive study probably could not be justified on the expectation that science would benefit. He added that well-defined research proposals should still be considered on their merits ^[7].

The detailed case chapters, written by project staff, are less tidy. Popular accounts often say the Condon Report explained every case away, but the documents do not support that: the study of the 1956 Lakenheath radar-visual sighting in England concluded that conventional explanations could not be ruled out but seemed unlikely, and that the chance at least one genuine UFO was involved was fairly high ^[8].

Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge.

— Edward U. Condon, Section I, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects [7]

How the Air Force used it

Inside the Air Force the report was welcomed. In February 1969 Lt. Col. Harold Steiner of the Scientific Advisory Board mailed three-volume copies to members of the original committee, recalling that the O'Brien committee had met in February 1966 without guessing it would become a springboard for such an effort ^[9].

On 17 December 1969 the Secretary of the Air Force announced the end of Project Blue Book. The Air Force fact sheet that NARA reproduces says the decision rested on the Colorado report, the National Academy of Sciences review of it, earlier studies and the Air Force's own experience. By then 12,618 sightings had been reported to Blue Book since 1947, and 701 remained unidentified ^[10].

I am satisfied with the results of the study and believe it puts the Air Force in an excellent position to counter criticism.

— Lt. Col. Harold A. Steiner, USAF Scientific Advisory Board, letter of 12 February 1969 [9]

Last fact-checked: 2026-10-03. Every claim cites its source.