Research source

Condon Committee

Date of account: Repository revision bf0636323d
Source: UAP Gerb Video Database — open research notes
Reference: 09 Organizations & Facilites · contributor research note
Rights: open_licensed
Language: English
Record updated: 2026-08-24

Record summary

The Condon Committee (1966–1968) was a government-funded scientific study of UFOs conducted by the University of Colorado under the leadership of Dr. Edward Condon. Officially known as the "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," it was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force to determine whether UFOs posed a national security threat or warranted further scientific investigation.

Published source text

Read the available text below. Archive transcriptions may contain OCR errors; later context is labelled separately. A recorded claim is not a finding that it happened.

Source passage

Source text · mention only

The Official UFO Debunking Effort Overview The Condon Committee (1966–1968) was a government-funded scientific study of UFOs conducted by the University of Colorado under the leadership of Dr. Edward Condon. Officially known as the "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," it was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force to determine whether UFOs posed a national security threat or warranted further scientific investigation. The final report (1968) concluded that UFOs did not represent a credible scientific or defense concern, leading to the shutdown of Project Blue Book in 1969 and a major shift in official U.S. policy toward UFO phenomena. --- Key Details & Findings Commissioned by: U.S. Air Force (as pressure mounted due to public & Congressional interest in UFOs). Leader: Dr. Edward Condon (Physicist and Former National Bureau of Standards Director). Research Institution: University of Colorado. Duration: 1966–1968. Final Report: Published January 1969, spanning over 965 pages. Key Conclusions: 1. UFOs posed no threat to national security. 2. There was no scientific value in further UFO studies. 3. Most sightings could be explained by conventional phenomena. 4. The small percentage of unexplained cases did not justify further research. These findings provided the justification for the termination of Project Blue Book in December 1969, marking the end of official U.S. Air Force investigations into UFOs. --- ️ Controversies & Allegations of Bias Despite its scientific facade, the Condon Committee was heavily criticized for its biased approach and possible pre-determined conclusions. Some key concerns include: 1️⃣ Leaked Internal Memo (1967) A leaked memo by project coordinator Robert Low Robert J. Low suggested that the committee’s purpose was to debunk UFOs rather than study them objectively. In his words: "Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers who, although they couldn’t possibly prove a negative result, could imply that no further investigation of UFOs was warranted." This revelation led to accusations that the Condon Committee was never meant to conduct an impartial scientific study, but rather to dismiss the UFO phenomenon. 2️⃣ Dismissal of Unexplained Cases Despite many cases remaining unexplained, the final report ignored their significance. Researchers like J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallée pointed out that the most credible sightings were overlooked or dismissed without serious investigation. 3️⃣ Public & Congressional Skepticism Many in Congress and the scientific community found the study’s conclusions questionable, leading to continued independent UFO research by organizations like NICAP and APRO. --- Legacy & Impact Justified the closure of Project Bluebook Project Blue Book (1969). Became the basis for the U.S. government's UFO stance for decades (UFOs = no scientific value). Led to growing distrust in government UFO investigations due to perceived bias. Ignored by later Pentagon UFO investigations (e.g., AATIP Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), UAP Task Force, AARO). Despite its dismissal of UFOs, the Condon Report contained cases that remain unexplained to this day—somethin

Historical context

Contextual commentary · mention only

This contributor-maintained note helps researchers discover terminology, people, programmes, incidents and cited material. Its presence does not independently verify the claims it describes.

Modern context

Contextual commentary · mention only

Use the note as a map to named subjects and references. Follow its citations and compare them with primary records before drawing conclusions.

Investigate related details with Anomaly Graph’s account-based search, or read how matching and provenance work.