The Condon Report - the best evidence ignored

One of the questions I got in the post screening Q & A session at the Oxford Theatre on Wednesday evening related to the seeming lack of interest by science, politicians and the media in the UFO phenomenon. "Why is that the case," asked the questioner, "if theUFO phenomenon is so widespread and prevalent?"

My answer is simple - everything changed with the Condon Report in the late 1960s, which was a scientific hatchet job and a USAF whitewash of the first order. I've written about what I call the "Condon Effect" before (see: The Condon Effect in Canada and Combatting the Condon Effect - The Sturrock Gambit), and how it provided a seemingly respectable cover for people who didn't really want to take a look at the UFO phenomenon - especially the evidence, which in the investigations conducted by the staff of the University of Colorado Project (i.e. the Condon group) showed a significant percentage of unexplained cases, which was completely at odds with the conclusions drawn by Condon himself.

Dick Hall was with NICAP back during the time of the Colorado Project. When I interviewed him for Best Evidence, I asked him about Condon, and his investigation. Here are some of Dick's thoughts:



If anyone cites the Condon Report to you as proof that there's nothing to the UFO phenomenon (as was once done in the Canadian House of Commons), make sure you tell him or her that you haven't been fooled by the un-scientific conclusions cooked up by Condon.

Or, as I wrote in The Condon Effect in Canada:

The Condon Report, which was the result of a two-year “scientific” study of the UFO phenomenon commissioned by the United States Air Force (known formally as The University of Colorado UFO Project), was released in 1968. Condon was the director. Virtually from the beginning, critics (including some of the committee’s members) charged that Condon and coordinator Robert Low were biased. When the report came out, in concluded that there were prosaic explanations for all UFO cases, and that there was no evidence to support the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. The Air Force, the American media (in general), and the scientific community (again, in general), accepted the report as the definitive word on the subject. Project Blue Book was terminated shortly after its release. Prominent critics such as Dr. Peter Sturrock, Dr. James E. McDonald, Stanton Friedman, and Dr. J. Allen Hynek, have all correctly noted that the report’s conclusions – which were authored by Condon himself – were sharply at variance with the evidence (Condon did not investigate any of the cases himself), which showed that 30% of the cases studied were classed as “unknowns,” higher even than earlier Air Force studies. As Sturrock wrote, “This report has clouded all attempts at legitimate UFO research since its release.” Little has changed in the almost four decades since the Report was released, as governments, the media, and many in the scientific community still cite it as proof that UFOs are not worth serious study. The Condon Report represents everything that science should not be.

In short, make sure you tell the person who cites the Condon Report that unlike Dr. Condon you prefer to keep an open mind - which is what any reasonable person, when faced with a bona fide mystery or unexplained phenomenon, must do.

Paul Kimball