The Condon Committee (1966—1969): The Report That Ended Project Blue Book.

What the Condon Committee was, in a paragraph.

The Condon Committee — formally the University of Colorado UFO Project — was a scientific study of unidentified flying objects conducted from 1966 to 1968 under U.S. Air Force contract and directed by the eminent physicist Edward U. Condon. The Air Force commissioned the study to obtain an independent scientific assessment of the UFO phenomenon, in part to resolve persistent criticism that its own Project Blue Book was inadequate and biased, and (as internal documents later suggested) in part to find a respectable basis to end its UFO investigation entirely. The project assembled a team of scientists who investigated case reports, conducted field studies, and analyzed photographic and instrumental evidence. Its final report, the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (the “Condon Report”), was issued in late 1968 and published commercially in 1969, running to roughly 1,000 pages. In his summary and conclusions — the part most people read — Condon stated that little of scientific value had come from UFO study over the previous two decades and that further extensive study was not justified. On the basis of the report, and after a favorable review by the National Academy of Sciences, the Air Force terminated Project Blue Book in December 1969, ending official U.S. UFO investigation for decades. The report became deeply controversial. Critics — including some of the project's own staff and prominent scientists such as the atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald and the project's former coordinator David Saunders — argued that Condon's negative conclusions did not match the body of the report, which contained a substantial fraction of cases (commonly cited as around 30 percent) that the investigators could not explain. The controversy was sharpened by the “Low memo,” an internal 1966 memorandum by project coordinator Robert Low that appeared to suggest the study could be framed to appear objective while reaching a predetermined negative conclusion. The Condon Committee thus stands as both the document that officially ended government UFO study and a textbook case in the dispute over whether that ending was scientifically justified or institutionally predetermined.

The documented record.

The commission and its purpose

The study was the Air Force's path out of UFO work. Verified Facing sustained criticism of Project Blue Book — including from the astronomer J. Allen Hynek, Blue Book's own scientific consultant, and after high-profile 1966 sightings — the Air Force contracted with the University of Colorado in 1966 for an independent study, with Edward Condon as scientific director. The contract was for a roughly $500,000 study to assess whether UFOs warranted continued scientific attention [1][2].

The Low memo

An internal memorandum cast a shadow over the project's objectivity. Verified In August 1966, before the study formally began, project coordinator Robert Low wrote a memo addressing how the university might undertake the study while protecting its scientific reputation. The memo suggested the work could be done so that, “to the scientific community, it would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer,” with the emphasis placed on studying the psychology of the people who report UFOs rather than the objects. The memo was discovered by staff members in 1967 and leaked, igniting accusations that the study was rigged toward a negative result. Its disclosure led to the firing of staff members (David Saunders and Norman Levine) and the resignation of others, and to a public rupture within the project [1][2][3].

The report and its conclusions

The report's summary was strongly negative. Verified The Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, issued in 1968, opened with Condon's summary concluding that nothing of scientific value had come from UFO study and that further work was not justified; it recommended against continued government investigation and against treating UFOs as a promising scientific field. This summary became the report's public face and the basis for its policy effect [1][4].

The unexplained cases

The body of the report did not match the summary's confidence. Verified The detailed case studies that made up the bulk of the report included a significant number that the investigators were unable to explain — a fraction commonly cited as roughly one-third of the studied cases. Critics pointed to this gap between the negative summary and the substantial residue of genuinely unexplained cases as the report's central inconsistency: a study that could not explain a third of its own best cases nonetheless concluded that the subject was not worth studying [1][3][5].

The NAS review and the end of Blue Book

The report achieved its policy purpose. Verified A National Academy of Sciences panel reviewed the Condon Report and endorsed its methodology and conclusions in 1969. On that basis, the Air Force announced in December 1969 the termination of Project Blue Book, citing the Condon Report's finding that continued investigation could not be justified on national-security or scientific grounds. Official U.S. government UFO investigation effectively ceased (publicly) for decades thereafter [1][4].

The scientific dissent

The report drew significant scientific criticism. Verified The atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald and others criticized the report's reasoning and the mismatch between its data and conclusions. In 1970 a subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) reviewed the Condon Report and concluded that Condon's own summary did not adequately reflect the body of the report, noting that a number of cases remained genuinely puzzling and that the dismissal was not fully warranted by the evidence presented. The dissent established that the report's conclusions were scientifically contested, not consensus [1][3][5].

The competing positions.

The official and majority-institutional position was that the Condon Report was a rigorous, independent scientific assessment that correctly concluded UFO study was not scientifically productive, justifying the end of government investigation. Claimed The National Academy of Sciences' endorsement was offered as validation, and the report's defenders argued that the unexplained cases reflected insufficient data rather than genuine anomalies [1][4].

Critics — including dissenting project staff, McDonald, Saunders, and the AIAA review — held that the report's negative summary was predetermined (as the Low memo suggested), was written by Condon largely independently of the case investigators, and contradicted the report's own evidence, which left a substantial fraction of cases unexplained. Disputed In this view the Condon Committee was less a neutral scientific study than an institutional instrument to justify a decision the Air Force had already made. Defenders counter that “unexplained” does not mean “extraordinary,” and that even genuine data gaps do not establish that the phenomenon merits major scientific resources. The disagreement — over whether the report's conclusion followed from its evidence — has never been resolved and remains a touchstone in debates over the scientific status of UFOs [1][3][5].

The unanswered questions.

The unexplained cases themselves

The roughly one-third of cases the project could not explain were not resolved by the study and have not been collectively resolved since. Disputed Whether they reflect data limitations or genuine anomalies is exactly the question the report was meant to settle and did not [1][5].

The degree of predetermination

How far the Low memo reflected an actual decision to reach a negative conclusion — versus a clumsy attempt to manage the university's reputation — is interpretively contested. Disputed The memo is documented; its operative effect on Condon's conclusions is argued [1][2][3].

What an honest study would have found

Because the Condon Committee remains the last major U.S. scientific UFO study before the modern UAP era, the counterfactual — what a methodologically uncontested study would have concluded — is unknowable. Unverified The modern AARO-era investigations are, in part, a belated return to the question Condon was supposed to answer [4][5].

Primary material.

The accessible record on the Condon Committee is held principally at these locations:

• The Condon Report — Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Edward U. Condon (director), University of Colorado, 1968; published by Bantam Books, 1969; available in full online.
• The Low memorandum (August 1966) — reproduced in the secondary literature and the project records.
• The AIAA review — the 1970–1971 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics assessment of the Condon Report.
• David R. Saunders and R. Roger Harkins, UFOs? Yes! (1968) — a critical first-hand account by a dismissed project member.
• The Project Blue Book termination records — the December 1969 Air Force decision.

Critical individual sources include: the Condon Report and its summary; the Low memo; and the AIAA critique.

The sequence.

1. 1966 The Air Force contracts the University of Colorado for an independent UFO study under Edward Condon.
2. August 1966 Robert Low writes the memo later seen as suggesting a predetermined negative conclusion.
3. 1967 The Low memo is discovered and leaked; staff are fired or resign amid the controversy.
4. 1968 The Condon Report is issued, concluding further study is unjustified.
5. 1969 The National Academy of Sciences endorses the report; it is published commercially.
6. December 1969 The Air Force terminates Project Blue Book.
7. 1970–1971 The AIAA review faults the mismatch between the report's data and its conclusions.

Cases on this archive that connect.

Project Blue Book (File 047) — the Air Force investigation the Condon Report ended.

The Robertson Panel (File 191) — the 1953 CIA review that similarly concluded against continued attention; the two are the bookend official studies of the classic era.

Project GRUDGE (File 190) — the earlier debunking effort in the same institutional lineage.

The 2024 AARO Historical Report (File 196) — the modern government review that returned, decades later, to the question Condon was meant to settle.

More related files coming as the archive grows. Planned: J. Allen Hynek, James McDonald, and the Center for UFO Studies.

Full bibliography.

1. Condon, Edward U. (director), Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, University of Colorado / Bantam Books, 1968–1969.
2. Saunders, David R., and Harkins, R. Roger, UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong, Signet, 1968.
3. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, UFO Subcommittee review of the Condon Report, Astronautics & Aeronautics, 1970–1971.
4. Jacobs, David Michael, The UFO Controversy in America, Indiana University Press, 1975.
5. Clark, Jerome, The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., Omnigraphics, 1998, entry on the Condon Committee.
6. U.S. Air Force, Project Blue Book termination announcement, December 1969.