The Condon Report (Review/Comment by Stanton Friedman)
Summary: The initially enthusiastic support [for the Condon study] from the major private UFO groups soon turned sour, as it became apparent that outspoken study director Dr. Edward Condon had concluded well in advance that there was nothing to be learned from investigating UFOS.
In 1965 an effort was begun to rebuild public confidence in the official investigation, which had been badly damaged by repeated disclosures of the failure of Project Blue Book explanations to match the facts on which they were supposed to be based. T he upshot was a $500,000-plus government contract to the University of Colorado to study the Air Force investigation-in public. The initially enthusiastic support from the major private UFO groups soon turned sour, as it became apparent that outspoken st udy director Dr. Edward Condon had concluded well in advance that there was nothing to be learned from investigating UFOS.
When his unscientific attitude could no longer be ignored, two scientist members of the Colorado group went public with a damaging document and were promptly fired. Despite the open controversy, the final report of the Condon Committee was completed i n 1968, blessed by the National Academy of Sciences, and then published commercially. Dr. Condon’s thoroughly negative summation was in stark contrast to the fascinating data buried in the lengthy report, where 30 percent Of the cases were left without c onventional explanation. of more than 550 unexplained reports then in the Project Blue Book files, only three were considered by the University of Colorado, while current sightings having little, chance of being significant were given expensive on-the-spo t investigations. It was a highly unsatisfying exercise.
While the Condon report was widely accepted as the final word on UFOS, not everyone agreed. The prestigious American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Professional society of the aerospace industry, stated: “The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from its content, namely that a phenomenon with such a high rate of unexplained cases (about 30%) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.”