How the Condon Report Raised the Cost of UFO Research

Introduction

The Condon Report changed scientific UFO research less by proving that every unusual sighting had a conventional explanation than by making a broad institutional judgement: further large-scale study was unlikely to advance science. Published in 1969 as the final report of the US Air Force-funded University of Colorado UFO project, it carried the authority of a major university, a distinguished physicist in Edward Condon, federal sponsorship and, crucially, subsequent endorsement by a National Academy of Sciences panel.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgFiles Condon Report, Section I: Conclusions & RecommendationsNCAS FilesCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations…

That combination mattered. The report supplied universities, funding bodies and government agencies with an authoritative reason not to create dedicated UFO programmes. The Air Force soon closed Project Blue Book, explicitly citing the Colorado study and the Academy’s review among the grounds for doing so. Yet the scientific case was more qualified than the policy effect suggests: the report acknowledged unexplained observations and left room for specific research proposals, while prominent scientists including J. Allen Hynek disputed the leap from unresolved cases to a recommendation against sustained investigation.[Secrets Declassified]secretsdeclassified.af.milOpen source on af.mil.

What the Colorado study actually concluded

Condon’s opening conclusions, however, were much broader than a catalogue of individual case findings. He argued that the preceding 21 years of UFO investigation had added nothing to scientific knowledge and concluded that “further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified” by an expectation of scientific progress. He also argued that the relative absence of UFO research was itself evidence of scientific judgement: relevant specialists had encountered the subject and generally decided that it was not a fruitful field for major discoveries.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgFiles Condon Report, Section I: Conclusions & RecommendationsNCAS FilesCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations…

That recommendation needs an important qualification. Condon did not declare that nobody should ever investigate an anomalous observation. His conclusions allowed that scientists with adequate credentials who developed a clearly defined proposal should be able to seek support through ordinary channels. He also identified atmospheric optics, radio propagation and atmospheric electricity as legitimate research areas encountered through UFO cases, and regarded UFO beliefs and reports as potentially interesting to social scientists and communications researchers.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgFiles Condon Report, Section I: Conclusions & RecommendationsNCAS FilesCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations…

The resulting position was therefore more nuanced than the shorthand “UFOs debunked”. In effect, it separated two questions. Particular observations or physical phenomena might deserve investigation, but “UFOs” as a general, dedicated field were judged a poor candidate for major continuing scientific investment.

That distinction became extremely consequential. A university researcher could still investigate an unusual radar return, atmospheric optical phenomenon or perceptual error under an established discipline. What had lost institutional legitimacy was the argument for a standing programme organised around UFOs themselves.

Why the report carried unusual institutional weight

The report’s influence cannot be understood simply by asking whether Condon explained every sighting. Its importance lay in who had been asked to make the judgement and how that judgement could subsequently be used.

The project was conducted at the University of Colorado under contract to the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Condon was already a highly accomplished physicist. The investigation therefore possessed something earlier official UFO inquiries struggled to provide: the appearance of an external academic assessment rather than merely another military judgement about its own programme.[UFO Transparency]ufotransparency.comdecade 1960s condon report 1968 ad0680975UFO TransparencyThe Condon Report (DTIC AD0680975), University of Colorado / U.S. Air Force (sponsor) · 1969 · UFO TransparencyOctober 31…

The National Academy of Sciences then amplified that authority. Its review panel was not commissioned to reinvestigate UFO cases independently; it was charged with assessing the Colorado report’s scope, methodology and findings. The panel explicitly said that it did not conduct its own UFO investigation or invite advocates to hearings. Nevertheless, after reviewing the report and other technical material, it judged the project’s scope adequate, its methodology consistent with accepted scientific standards and its overall conclusions reasonable.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - NAS Review of The Condon Report…

The Academy panel unanimously characterised the Colorado project as a creditable attempt to apply science objectively. It agreed that UFO investigations deserved no high priority and concluded that studying UFOs “in general” was not a promising route towards expanding scientific understanding. At the same time, it acknowledged that some sightings remained difficult to explain and accepted that research into particular associated phenomena could be useful.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - NAS Review of The Condon Report…

This distinction helps explain how the report affected research governance. A funding decision does not require proof that a proposed subject is impossible or fraudulent. It requires a judgement about priorities: given limited money, staff, telescope time, laboratory access and academic attention, is this line of investigation likely to produce enough knowledge to justify investment?

The Condon Report and the Academy review supplied a prestigious answer: generally, no.[wikidisc.org]wikidisc.orgCondon Report | Wiki DiscCondon Report | Wiki Disc

That answer was directly incorporated into government policy. The Air Force states that its decision to terminate Project Blue Book on 17 December 1969 was based on the Colorado report, the National Academy review, earlier UFO studies and its own experience. Project Blue Book had accumulated 12,618 reports, of which 701 remained classified as unidentified, but the existence of that unexplained residue did not prevent termination.[Secrets Declassified]secretsdeclassified.af.milOpen source on af.mil.

This is the report’s clearest measurable institutional consequence. It did not establish that every case had been solved. It helped establish that the remaining uncertainty did not justify maintaining a specialised federal UFO investigation.

How a scientific judgement raised the cost of further UFO research

The report’s longer-term effect was largely indirect. There was no rule preventing a professor from studying UFO reports, and Condon himself did not recommend banning individual research proposals. Instead, the study altered the burden of justification.

After 1969, anyone proposing a substantial UFO research programme had to contend with a recently completed, federally sponsored university project saying that precisely such extensive investigation was unlikely to advance science — plus a National Academy panel concurring with its central recommendation. A grant reviewer, department head or university administrator therefore did not have to make a fresh judgement about the entire UFO literature before declining support. An authoritative precedent already existed.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - NAS Review of The Condon Report…

The project’s history also reveals that reputational concerns were present even before the investigation formally began. In an August 1966 memorandum, project coordinator Robert Low recorded resistance within the University of Colorado to accepting the work. According to the memo, colleagues regarded serious consideration of UFOs as professionally disreputable and believers as “outcasts”. Whatever interpretation is placed on Low’s subsequent proposal for presenting the project, the document is unusually direct evidence that university administrators understood UFO investigation as carrying academic risk before Condon had reached his published conclusions.[NICAP]nicap.orgRobert Low "trick" memoRobert Low "trick" memoAugust 9, 1966…Published: August 9, 1966

The report therefore interacted with an existing stigma rather than creating it from nothing. Before Colorado, the difficulty was that UFO research looked professionally hazardous and scientifically uncertain. After Colorado, scepticism could additionally be framed as the conclusion of a major scientific assessment.

This mechanism is more defensible historically than claiming that the Condon Report somehow prohibited UFO science. It changed incentives. Research questions could more readily attract support when translated into recognised fields — radar propagation, atmospheric physics, psychology, astronomy or aerospace safety — than when proposed as a general investigation of UFOs.

The report itself effectively endorsed that arrangement. The Academy review noted that atmospheric and related research was already being conducted by bodies including the Department of Defense, NASA, universities and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The recommendation was not to stop investigating poorly understood atmospheric phenomena; it was to avoid making “UFOs” the organising scientific category.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - NAS Review of The Condon Report…

The central scientific criticism: the cases and the recommendation did not always point the same way

Critics did not need to argue that extraterrestrial spacecraft had been proved to challenge Condon’s policy recommendation. Their stronger objection was methodological: how far can unresolved cases support a conclusion that further systematic investigation is unlikely to be worthwhile?

J. Allen Hynek, an astronomer who had consulted for the Air Force’s UFO programme for more than two decades, made this argument in a 1969 review in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. He noted that the Colorado material still contained an unexplained residue and highlighted conclusions from individual investigators that were substantially more cautious than Condon’s overall recommendation.[Taylor & Francis Online]tandfonline.comTaylor & Francis OnlineBooks: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Vol 25, No 4September 15, 2015…Published: September 15, 2015

One particularly revealing example was planetary astronomer William Hartmann’s assessment. As reproduced in Hynek’s review, Hartmann judged the available evidence compatible both with the possibility that the entire phenomenon resulted from misidentification, inadequate reporting and fabrication and with the possibility that a very small fraction involved extraordinary events. That is not evidence for extraterrestrial craft. It is, however, a substantially less final judgement than the popular impression that the Colorado project had simply explained away the phenomenon.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - The Condon Report and UFOs: Dr. J. Allen Hynek…

Other technical chapters likewise retained uncertainties. A section dealing with alleged physical effects described reported automobile malfunctions as puzzling and stated that no satisfactory explanation was apparent if those effects had actually occurred. The same chapter nevertheless found no verified physical evidence establishing a connection between UFOs and changes in electrical or magnetic fields or radiation. This combination — unresolved testimony but inadequate physical confirmation — captures much of the genuine scientific difficulty that the broad “for or against UFOs” debate tended to obscure.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgFiles Condon Report Section III, Chapter 4: Indirect Physical EvidenceNCAS FilesCondon Report Section III, Chapter 4: Indirect Physical Evidence…

Hynek also pointed to unresolved astronaut observations and radar cases. One project investigator described three unexplained astronaut sightings as a challenge to analysts; another considered a particular radar case among the most puzzling on record. For Hynek, findings of this kind justified continued curiosity even if most reports were mundane.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - The Condon Report and UFOs: Dr. J. Allen Hynek…

The National Academy panel was aware of the same basic issue. It explicitly stated that positive identification of every report was impossible and recognised that some incidents remained unexplained. Its reasoning was that “unexplained” did not amount to positive evidence for extraterrestrial technology, and that the difficulty and transient nature of the observations made general UFO investigation an unpromising research strategy.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - NAS Review of The Condon Report…

That is the real scientific dispute surrounding the Condon Report. Both sides could agree that most reports were explainable and that unexplained did not mean extraterrestrial. They differed over what should follow from the remaining uncertainty. Condon and the Academy treated the poor overall yield as a reason to assign the field low priority. Critics such as Hynek treated a smaller number of stubborn cases as precisely the material on which better research should concentrate.

The Low memorandum complicated the report’s authority

A second criticism concerned not the final case analyses but the project’s institutional posture before research began.

Robert Low’s August 1966 internal memorandum discussed the University’s difficulty in taking on a subject that many academics regarded as disreputable. It also considered how a study might be presented as objective to the public while reassuring the scientific community that its investigators had very low expectations of finding evidence for “saucers”. The document subsequently became a major source of controversy over whether the project’s negative orientation had preceded its evidence.[NICAP]nicap.orgRobert Low "trick" memoRobert Low "trick" memoAugust 9, 1966…Published: August 9, 1966

The memo does not by itself demonstrate that every later investigation was manipulated or that the report’s conventional explanations were wrong. Indeed, the National Academy panel subsequently reviewed the completed work and found its methodology acceptable.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - NAS Review of The Condon Report…

Its importance for the history of scientific stigma is different. It documents how concerns about academic respectability entered the decision-making process surrounding the Colorado project. University officials were not approaching an entirely neutral research category that happened, after two years, to produce disappointing results. They already understood that accepting a UFO contract could damage institutional credibility.[NICAP]nicap.orgRobert Low "trick" memoRobert Low "trick" memoAugust 9, 1966…Published: August 9, 1966

This makes the Condon episode unusually informative about how stigma operates in science. The problem was not simply scientists laughing at unconventional claims. It involved governance questions: whether a university should accept a controversial contract, how the project should be presented to professional peers, what standard of evidence would justify continued expenditure and whether unexplained observations constituted a coherent research programme.

Scientific dissent survived, but largely outside a major institutional programme

The Condon Report did not produce complete scientific unanimity. The American Association for the Advancement of Science hosted a UFO symposium in December 1969, showing that serious scientific debate had not immediately ceased. Hynek continued arguing for more discriminating investigation, and scientists such as James E. McDonald mounted detailed attacks on the adequacy of official treatment of UFO reports.

There was also institutional dissent. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics had established a UFO subcommittee in 1967. Its 1970 appraisal did not accept that the Condon Report had closed the scientific question; it argued that a small core of well-documented unexplained cases was difficult to disregard and favoured continued scientific attention.[Isaac Koi Archive]isaackoi.com19701100 aiaa on condon reportIsaac Koi Archive1970.1100 AIAA on Condon Report | Isaac Koi Archive…

What disappeared was not all scientific interest but the expectation of a large, mainstream US government-sponsored programme devoted specifically to UFOs. The Air Force terminated Blue Book, while researchers who remained interested increasingly pursued the subject through private organisations, individual scholarship or investigations framed within conventional disciplines.[Secrets Declassified]secretsdeclassified.af.milOpen source on af.mil.

That distinction matters when assessing later claims that UFO research was “suppressed”. The historical record supports a narrower and more ordinary mechanism: a prestigious negative assessment lowered the institutional priority of the subject, reinforced pre-existing reputational concerns and made dedicated programmes harder to justify. It does not, on its own, establish covert coercion or deliberate suppression of valid discoveries.

The report’s legacy is stronger as a funding precedent than as a final scientific verdict

The Condon Report is sometimes treated as though it answered a single factual question: were UFOs real? That misstates both what the study found and why it became influential.

Its durable intervention was a judgement about research allocation. Most reports had ordinary explanations; the remaining cases had not yielded persuasive evidence of extraterrestrial technology; transient observations were unusually difficult to investigate; therefore a major continuing UFO programme offered poor expected scientific returns. The National Academy of Sciences endorsed that logic, and the Air Force incorporated it into the decision to close Project Blue Book.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - NAS Review of The Condon Report…

Yet the report simultaneously left enough unresolved material to sustain a scientific counterargument. Hynek and other critics could point to cases that the project’s own specialists had not satisfactorily explained. The dispute therefore was never simply between “science” and people who believed in extraterrestrial visitors. It was also a legitimate disagreement about research strategy: whether a small anomalous residue justified better data collection or whether decades of low-quality, transient observations demonstrated that the field was intrinsically unlikely to repay sustained investment.[Project 1947]project1947.comProject 1947SHG - The Condon Report and UFOs: Dr. J. Allen Hynek…

That is why the Condon Report belongs centrally in the history of professional stigma surrounding UFO investigation. Its greatest power was not to make anomalous observations disappear. It converted scepticism about them into an institutionally validated judgement about what scientists, universities and public agencies should regard as worth their time and money. In the wider history of researchers who later experienced professional marginalisation — including figures drawn into UFO or unconventional-propulsion controversies — that documented institutional mechanism should be distinguished from much stronger allegations of intimidation, disappearance or suspicious death. The Condon episode provides substantial evidence for increased reputational and funding barriers; it does not provide evidence that those barriers formed part of a lethal campaign against researchers.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to How the Condon Report Raised the Cost of UFO Research. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry

By Joseph Allen Hynek

Cited by the New York Review of Books as "the best brief for visitation," this classic study presents an analysis of UFO reports and conc...

See on Amazon

Book

UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry

By Michael D. Swords

Governments around the world have had to deal with the UFO phenomenon for a good part of a century. How and why they did so is the subjec...

See on Amazon

Book

The UFO Controversy in America

By David Michael Jacobs

See on Amazon

Book

The Hynek UFO Report: The Authoritative Account of the Projec...

By Joseph Allen Hynek

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:The UFO Experience: A Scientific InquiryUFOs and Government: A Historical InquiryThe UFO Controversy in America

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Selected fromUFO memorabilia oneBay.co.uk.

Current eBay listing

The Pleasuredome UFO Poster Limited Edition Memorabilia Print Rave Poster Gift

GBP 39.59 | Free shippingNewSeller: posterglam (100.0% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

Original 1996 Buzz Sightings Flyer UFO Design Washington DC Rave Memorabilia

GBP 35.91 | Free shippingSeller: old school303 (0.0% positive)Ships from: JP

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

ED WALTERS UFO GULF BREEZE POSTCARD UFOLOGY MEMORABILIA

GBP 6.52 | Shipping GBP 3.38GoodSeller: dianearl6 (98.9% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: Files Condon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-i.htm

2. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/nascu.html

3. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/bas1.html

4. Source: colorado.edu
Link:https://www.colorado.edu/coloradan/2021/11/05/condon-report-cu-boulders-historic-ufo-study

5. Source: nicap.org
Title: Robert Low “trick” memo
Link:https://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm

Published: August 9, 1966

6. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: Files Condon Report Section III, Chapter 4: Indirect Physical Evidence
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap04.htm

7. Source: colorado.edu
Link:https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/06/09/cu-site-one-last-government-commissioned-reports-ufos-what-does-it-say

8. Source: history.nasa.gov
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a11/a11.html

9. Source: history.nasa.gov
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a11/a11.postland.html

10. Source: history.com
Title: u s air force closes the book on ufos 45 years ago
Link:https://www.history.com/articles/u-s-air-force-closes-the-book-on-ufos-45-years-ago

11. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/shglinks.html

12. Source: history.nasa.gov
Title: WOTM A17Dust Obscur
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/WOTM/WOTM-A17DustObscur.html

13. Source: history.nasa.gov
Title: WOTM sleep
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/WOTM/WOTM-sleep.html

14. Source: history.nasa.gov
Title: Hamish ALSEP
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/HamishALSEP.html

15. Source: history.nasa.gov
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a11/a11LM2LWC.html

16. Source: history.nasa.gov
Title: WOTM Radiation
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/WOTM/WOTM-Radiation.html

17. Source: history.nasa.gov
Title: WOTM A8Sleep Notes
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/WOTM/WOTM-A8SleepNotes.html

18. Source: nicap.org
Link:https://www.nicap.org/chronos/1969fullrep.htm

19. Source: nicap.org
Link:https://www.nicap.org/chronos/1966fullrep.htm

20. Source: history.nasa.gov
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/Schaber.html

21. Source: project1947.com
Title: SH G: Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns: Mc Donald
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/metfac70.html

22. Source: condon.ncas.org
Link:https://condon.ncas.org/text/intro.htm

23. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: sec ii
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-ii.htm

24. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-a.htm

25. Source: ncas.org
Link:https://www.ncas.org/p/library.html

26. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/contents.htm

27. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap01.htm

28. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap03.htm

29. Source: condon.ncas.org
Link:https://condon.ncas.org/text/s5chap03.htm

30. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap02.htm

31. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap02.htm

32. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case05.htm

33. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/mccarthy/chap06.html

34. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: appndx v
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-v.htm

35. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case12.htm

36. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap01.htm

37. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s4chap02.htm

38. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: appndx k
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-k.htm

39. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/readme.htm

40. Source: project1947.com
Title: SH G: J. J. A. Hennessey
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/hennessey/hennessey.htm

41. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/appndx-a.html

42. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/swordscc.html

43. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/bg/ufogov.htm

44. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/siklass.html

45. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/case11.html

46. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/s6chap09.html

47. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/n6.htm

48. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/case32.html

49. Source: nicap.org
Link:https://www.nicap.org/ufology/ufochap1.htm

50. Source: nicap.org
Title: 78hall wave67
Link:https://www.nicap.org/papers/78hall-wave67.htm

51. Source: history.nasa.gov
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/sputnik.html

52. Source: history.nasa.gov
Title: policies and faq
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/policies_and_faq.html

53. Source: history.nasa.gov
Title: Aaron Cohen
Link:https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/AaronCohen.html

54. Source: nicap.org
Title: 1969TruthAbCondRep NICAP
Link:https://www.nicap.org/waves/1969TruthAbCondRep_NICAP.htm

55. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s5chap02.htm

56. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/covrletr.htm

57. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/preface.htm

58. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/s5chap02.html

59. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://project1947.com/shg/articles/fiasco.html

61. Source: nicap.org
Title: UF O Report
Link:https://www.nicap.org/151968.htm

62. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: appndx h
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-h.htm

63. Source: project1947.com
Link:https://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/appndx-b.html

64. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case52.htm

65. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: appndx u
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-u.htm

66. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: appndx s
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-s.htm

67. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: appndx r
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-r.htm

68. Source: youtube.com
Title: UFOs, the Air Force, and the Colorado Study (Ret. USAF Col. David Shea)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2wfUiUodpM

69. Source: youtube.com
Title: The Condon Report | NASA’s Unexplained Files
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W7SqS6UhE4

70. Source: youtube.com
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjinS2lZAsY

71. Source: secretsdeclassified.af.mil
Link:https://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/459832/project-blue-book/

72. Source: ufotransparency.com
Title: decade 1960s condon report 1968 ad0680975
Link:https://ufotransparency.com/files/decade-1960s-condon-report-1968-ad0680975

73. Source: tandfonline.com
Link:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1969.11455207

Published: September 15, 2015

74. Source: isaackoi.com
Title: 19701100 aiaa on condon report
Link:https://isaackoi.com/ufo-history/ufo/19701100-aiaa-on-condon-report/

75. Source: wikidisc.org
Title: Condon Report | Wiki Disc
Link:https://www.wikidisc.org/wiki/Condon_Report

76. Source: archives.gov
Title: Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos

77. Source: theblackvault.com
Title: project blue book
Link:https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/project-blue-book/

78. Source: archives.gov
Title: Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/foia/ufos.html

79. Source: ufotransparency.com
Title: eghigian ufos mutual mistrust 2017
Link:https://ufotransparency.com/scholarly/papers/eghigian-ufos-mutual-mistrust-2017

80. Source: uapcodex.org
Title: condon report 1968
Link:https://uapcodex.org/cases/condon-report-1968/

81. Source: encyclopedia.com
Link:https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/condon-report

82. Source: isaackoi.com
Title: 19870000 sturrock on condon
Link:https://isaackoi.com/ufo-history/ufo/19870000-sturrock-on-condon/

83. Source: af.mil
Link:https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Indextitle/U/

84. Source: af.mil
Title: Fact Sheets
Link:https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/?Page=2&Search=National+OR+Museum+OR+United+OR+States+OR+Air+OR+Force&Sort=Rank

85. Source: secretsdeclassified.af.mil
Title: Fact Sheets
Link:https://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/Fact-Sheets/

86. Source: af.mil
Title: Fact Sheets
Link:https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/?Page=10&Sort=rank

87. Source: af.mil
Title: Fact Sheets
Link:https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/?Page=3&Search=arpc+OR+numbered+OR+af

88. Source: af.mil
Title: Fact Sheets
Link:https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/?Page=10

89. Source: nap.nationalacademies.org
Link:https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/28995/chapter/14

90. Source: nap.nationalacademies.org
Link:https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/20375/chapter/2

91. Source: isaackoi.com
Title: 19680729 congressman roush hearing
Link:https://isaackoi.com/ufo-history/ufo/19680729-congressman-roush-hearing/

92. Source: ufotransparency.com
Link:https://ufotransparency.com/files/decade-1960s-condon-report-1968-condon-report-full-text-ncas-archive

93. Source: nap.nationalacademies.org
Link:https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/28995/chapter/7

94. Source: disclosdex.com
Title: Colorado UFO Project | Disclosdex
Link:https://disclosdex.com/organizations/colorado-ufo-project

Additional References

95. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/catalog-bulk-downloads/uap-bulk-download

96. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000700660006-3

97. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary

98. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/publications

99. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00552r000505400051-3

100. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/textual-and-microfilm

101. Source: govinfo.gov
Link:https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-PREX28-PURL-gpo223327

102. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp94-01353r002101560011-2

103. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp83m00914r002800040044-4

104. Source: youtube.com
Title: Edward U. Condon: Quantum Pioneer & Champion of Scientific Integrity
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj0fPLpqOKI