Documents / Report

Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (the Condon Report, complete, three volumes)

University of Colorado · 1969-01 · 1497 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is the final report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, conducted by the University of Colorado under Air Force contract F44620-67-C-0035, with Edward U. Condon as scientific director and Daniel S. Gillmor as editor. It was submitted to the National Academy of Sciences on 15 November 1968 for review. The report includes field studies, photographic and radar analyses, case studies, historical chapters and appendices such as the Robertson Panel report and the Twining letter.

correspondence with them. He is motivated by an active curiosity
about nature and by a personal desire to make a contribution to
science. lie i~; con;;tantly probing for error and incompleteness in
the efforts thnt hal'e b\~en m",de in h15 fields of in,,~rest, and look-
ing f"r new ideas about new ways to attack new prob leIns, From this
effort he arrives It pel~onal decisions as to where his own vffart can
be most fl'uitful. 'Dlese decisions are personal in the senSe that he
mus t estimate hi.'; L,wr, intt'llectual limi tat ions, an.d the limitations
inherent in the i,wrking si tuation in which he finds himself, includ-
ing limits on the support of hi~ work, or hi~ invo.vement ~ith other
pr~-cxisting scientific commitments. While individual errors of
jUdgment may ar1~,'..;. : i~~ generally not true that all of the scientists
who are actively cl_tivating a given field of science arc wrong for
vrney, and for medical treatment !;I_'nsibl e people seek'
qua 1,ified phY"iciall. The nation's surest gL.arantu: of scicntiflc
excellence is to leave the decision-making iJroces~ to the indhidual
and collective judgment of its scientists.
Scientists are no respecters of author.~ty. Our conclusion tlHi.t
study of UF', l'::ports is not likely to advancc' ~;dence will not he
uncritically ar,;G(~pted by them. Nor shculcl it be, nor do we wish it to
he. FOl scientif;ts, it i~ our hope that the detailed finalyth.:al pre-
5rntation c/ w"at \\'(: werE' able to do, and of what I'll' were unable to do,
~'il1 assist them in deciding whether or not ~hcy agree with our con-
cll1sioll~. (Jur hope is that the details of this report wi.ll help other
scientists in st~eing "hat thl' problems are and the difficulties of
co~ing with them.
If they agree Idth vur conclusions, they \dll turn their valllablE:'
attl'nticn ano talents elsewhere. If they disagree it will be bccf".';(·
correspondence with them. fle]s motivatod by an active curiosity
about nature and by a personal desire to make a contribution to
science. lie i!i con3tan tly probing for error and Incompleteness in
the efforts thHt have b,'en rn"de in his fields of in,,0rest, and look-
ing f~r new ideas about new ways to attack new problems, From this
effort he arrhd~s 1t pelsonal decisIons as to where his own effort can
be mOEt fruitful, 'DIes£' decisions are personal in the sense that he
must estimate Itis coWl'. intdlectual limi tations, an.d the lirni tations
inherent in the working situation in which he finds himself, includ-
ing limits on the support of his work, or hi!' invo"vement ·o:ith other
pr~·<.,.dsting scientific commitments. While individual errors of
judgment may ari,,'~, : i:, generally not true that all of the scientist~
who are activel." (;l _ :_ivating a given field of science arc wrong for
v<'ry long.
Even concedL1g tlut the cntire body of 'c''fidal'' science might
be in error for a time, we believe that. thcI" , i:i no hette:..' way to
correct error thal1 to gl ve free reign to the id,~as cf individual
"c:ienrists to mak,~' uccisions as to the dirc'.'tior,'.. iil which scientific
J rogress i~ most like ly to be made. For legal "ark scr:"ible ;)copl(.
seek an att'Jrney, and for medical treatment ';I.'!lsib 1e peopLe seek
qua 1.i.fied phy,;ician. The nation's surest gl..arantlt' of ';clcntijic
exee 11 ence is to leaV<' the decis ion-making iJroces~ to the indh idua I
and collective judgment of its scientists,
Scientists are no respecters of author~ty, Our conclusion ~lut
study of UF', l'~ports is lWt Lii<.(Jly to advance !;clencc wi 11 not he
ul1criticall) al~c~~pteJ bv them, Nor shculu it be, nor do we wi~h it to
he, FOT ~ci(,llt:iS ts, i t i~ our hope that the uet.ailed finalyti..:al pre-
srntation c/ w"at "'(: wen' able to ,}o, and of what I"e were unsule to do,
\'I'ill assist them in deciding whl'ther or not ~hey agree with our cort-
ClllSioll~, (Jur hepe is that the details of this report w111 help other
scientists til st~eing "hat thl' problems arc and tlH~ difficulties of
cO!-,i ng with tllem,
If they agree Ivlth our (.ollclusions, they w.i11 turn their valllJhle
attl'nt.icn and talents elsewhere. If they uisagree it wi 11 be bccw.,;t,

Cases discussed

About this file

Report, from the classic collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 1497 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.