DECUR
View in Network →

Condon Committee (University of Colorado UFO Study)

DefunctStudy1966-1969

Type

Study

Status

Defunct

Active Period

1966-1969

Parent Organization

University of Colorado / United States Air Force

Summary

The University of Colorado UFO Project, commonly known as the Condon Committee after its director physicist Edward U. Condon, was an Air Force-funded scientific study of unidentified flying objects conducted from 1966 to 1969. Its final report - popularly called the Condon Report - concluded that further scientific study of UFOs was not warranted, providing the justification the Air Force used to terminate Project Blue Book in December 1969. The study remains deeply controversial: multiple team members accused Condon of predetermining the conclusions, and a leaked internal memo revealed the goal was to 'kill the subject' rather than investigate it honestly.

Significance

The Condon Report's recommendation to end UFO investigation effectively shut down official U.S. government study of the phenomenon for 50 years. Despite the report's dismissive conclusion, 30% of the 87 cases examined were left unresolved - a fact buried in its own body text. The National Academy of Sciences endorsed the report's conclusions without independently reviewing the case files. The 'trick memo' written by project coordinator Robert Low, which revealed institutional intent to deliver a negative result regardless of findings, became a central exhibit in arguments that the U.S. government has systematically suppressed UAP research.

Key Personnel

E

Edward U. Condon

Principal Investigator / Committee Director

R

Robert Low

Project Coordinator - authored the controversial 'trick memo'

D

David Saunders

Co-investigator - fired after leaking the Low memo to NICAP

J

J. Allen Hynek

External consultant and critic of the committee's methodology

J

Jacques Vallee

Consultant who advised against the study's dismissive approach

Limitations & Caveats

  • !The Low memo demonstrated institutional intent to deliver a predetermined negative conclusion, undermining the study's scientific credibility.
  • !The report's dismissive executive summary contradicts its own body chapters, which leave roughly 30% of examined cases unresolved.
  • !The National Academy of Sciences endorsement was based on the report's conclusions, not an independent review of the 87 case files.
  • !Key critics - Hynek, McDonald, Vallee - were marginalized or excluded as the committee moved toward its final conclusion.
  • !The Air Force funding arrangement created a conflict of interest: the contractor was paid to exonerate the client's policy decision to terminate Blue Book.