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.

been ruled out primari lyon the basis of wind dir€ctlon on the alleged
date of the sighting.
Since ~l detailed aCl.~ount of this sighting is given in Chapter ~,
Section IV, anI)' tl'ut informati on is presented here which i 1Justrates
the difficulties arisIng in attempts to investigate an event which
occurred years previously, even when the primary and most of the
principal secondary witnesses are still available.
This wTiter vished the photog1'apher seeking details that might
confirm or disprove his claim that the Air Force had admitted
confiscating part of the film. The photographer ~ad asserted that
he possessed a letter from the Air Force containing precisely such
an admission. It the letter could be ,roduced, it might then be
p02sible for the project to recover the allegedly missing film
for study. A fIrst-hand account of the s~ghtjng also was desired.
At Great FallS, ~lont. wlwre -he film was made ,residEonts who had
seen the film before it was sent to the Air Forc~ were interviewed,
newspaper accounts were searched, and attempts were made to resolve
discrepancies in these reports. TIle anI) other person who reportedly
witne~sed the filming was, at the time of the event, serving as
st.:!cret ary to thA phot0grapher. She was interviewed hy telephone.
1) The photographer had an extensive acclllnulati on of papers
and ne~ s clippings relating to his LIFO film, much of it referring
to his participation in a commercii-llly produced uoclI1nentary on UFOs
released in 1956. ,\l() Air Force (or other) letter admitting that
part of the fi 1m !Iud bcC'n removed could he found among these aCCU"l-
ulateJ papers. 111(' photograpl~er nevertheless insistcJ that he
had such a 1l'ttCT, al1l1 suggested that many sl1t.:h itc'ms /wd heen
misplaced \~h(,11 h" had ch"ngeJ his resi dcnt~e.
2) lie also profe~s('J to no know]cugc of ti!? I\ir Force's "ickntifi_
~~ati()n" of the- filmed objects as tloJO P-~)I\ alJpl:lI1cs circling to la,1d
at the Great Falls All' l~as(', now TCnal11eJ Malmstlom ArB. lie remcmhl.'T(!J
no aircraft ill the ~ky ncar the timC' of his tJHl ~·.ightjng, and
75
been ruled OLlt primari lyon the basis of wind directlon on the alleged
date of the sighting.
Since ,,1 detailed ace.ount of this sighting is given in Chapter ~,
Section IV, only tl'at informabon is presented here which illustrates
the difficulties arisIng in attempts to investigate an event which
occurred years previoUSly, even when the primary and most of the
pri ncipal 5 econdary wi tnes ses are sti 11 avai 1 ab le.
This w1"i ter vished the photographer seeking detai Is that might
confirm OT disprove his claim that the Air Force had admitted
confiscating part of the film. The photographer ~ad asserted that
he possessed a letter from the Air Force containing precisely such
:lll admission. It the letter could be .roduced, it might then be
PC2 sible for the project to ret:over the allegeJly missing film
for study. A first-hand account of the s:ghting also was desired.
At l;reat FallS, Mont. wlwre 'he fDm was made ,residEnts who had
scen the fj 1m before it was sent to the Air Fore,," were interViewed,
newspaper accounts were searched, and attempts were made to resolve
discrepancies in these reports. TIle onl) other person who reportedly
witnessed the filming was, at the time of the event, serving as
secret ary to the phot0grapher. She was i.1l tervi owed hy telephone.
1) The photographer had an extensive acct~ulBtion of papers
and ne\ 5 clippings relating to his UFO film, much of it referring
to his participation in a commcrcicllly produced docuJ11entary on UFOs
released in 1956. ,\Ie> flir Force (or other) lcttpT admitting that
part of th~ fi 1m had bCC'J1 removed could 11C found among th('~c a<':CU"l-
ulated papers. 111e photograpl'L'r nevertheless insi sted t.hat he
had such a ll'ttcr, <JilL! suggested that many sudl ltc'm;; hod been
misplaced I~h('n he h<lJ chungC'd l1is res.i dcnt:c.
2) Ik' al~o profe~s('J to no ~l1o\ded~~c of ti!,:: Ai r Forcc's "idt'lltifj_
\:~lti()n" of the- filmcJ objects as llYO p.()!\ aiJpl:II1(1s circling to la,1d
at the Great Falls All' Ila~i(', now rcnHlllcJ Malmstlom AI'B. 11(' rcmcm\H'rt'J
no aircraft ill the sky ncar tllO time of h.i~ UFO ~',ighting, and
7S

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.