Donald Keyhoe and the Condon Report

This is the cover of the paperback edition of the Condon Report.

The final book by Major Donald E. Keyhoe (USMC Ret.) Aliens from Space (1973) includes a description of the circumstances involved in what became known as the Condon Report, the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (1968) commissioned by the Air Force at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

As reported in chapter 8 of Aliens from Space, the Colorado University study was announced on October 7, 1966.  The project administrator was Robert J. Low.

Naming Dr. Edward Condon as the CU Project director, the AF declared that he would conduct a serious, objective, scientific investigation.

Within twenty-four hours Dr. Condon brushed aside this reassuring picture and revealed himself as a tough-minded disbeliever in UFOs.

"It is highly improbable they exist," he was quoted in the New York Times and scores of other papers.  "The view that UFOs are hallucinatory will be a subject of our investigation, to discover what it is that makes people imagine they see things."

Just four days before this, Dr. Condon had promised an impartial, careful study.  The pledge was written into the AF contract he signed, along with two high CU officials:

The work will be conducted under conditions of the strictest objectivity by investigators who, as carefully as can be determined, have no predilections or preconceived positions on the UFO question.  This is essential if the public, the Congress, the Executive and the scientific community are to have confidence in the study.

On October 9, Dr. Condon told the Denver Post he thought the AF had been doing a good job.  "About 95% of the UFO reports are relatively easily identified.  With more information, others could probably be explained . . . [which] indicates an appalling lack of public understanding."


Before this, Dr.  Condon and Low had asked for NICAP's evidence and our help in their investigations.  An independent inquiry seemed impossible after the long AF secrecy and debunking.  But if we refused we would be accused of not having any real evidence to submit.  I told Condon and Low we would assist them—if they made a full-scale investigation, free of AF interference.  Both assured me this was their definite purpose.

When Keyhoe called Condon to discuss his press statements, Condon complained about having been misquoted.  Despite finding the claim hard to accept, Keyhoe agreed to attend a conference at Boulder, "hoping to get the true picture of this AF-financed operation."  

He recalled, "When the conference ended I still had strong doubts about the project, but I told Low we would train their field men and help toward an objective evaluation."  There were further negative statements by Condon and when a project member told Keyhoe that the project heads had ordered a search for "negative evidence," Condon and Low were immediately notified that no further NICAP UFO reports would be shared.  There was an ensuing meeting at NICAP between Low, the project's new Assistant Director Gordon Lore, and Keyhoe.

At the start, I told Low we had already gone too far.

"We've had too many runarounds.  We won't consider going on unless you give us some straight answers."

"All right.  You're being frank—I'll try to be too."

"First, has Dr. Condon ever interviewed a UFO witness?"  When Low shook his head, I added, "Does he ever intend to?"

"Not at present," said Low. 

"The only field trip we know about was after a contactee told Condon a UFO was going to land near an Air Force base.  Condon went there—why, I don't know."

"Those contactees fascinate him," Low explained.  "But you're right, he hasn't made any other field investigation.  And he has no plans for one.  I might as well tell you—if he had to make a conclusion now it would be negative."

Gordon Lore looked startled.  "Without even examining any of the evidence?"

Low nodded.  "He is honestly convinced there's nothing to it."

"Mr. Low," I said, "Dr. Condon sent you here to urge us to keep sending reports.  Exactly why—since he won't examine them?"

"Because we can be accused of reaching a conclusion without examining all of your evidence."

"The project will be accused of a lot more," I said a bit curtly, "if there's a negative verdict and you claim NICAP's evidence was examined."  Low started to break in but I stopped him, "Some of the Board members and advisers don't believe the project is on the level—"

"Wait a second," Low said quickly.  "I don't feel it's your job to find out if it's on the level or not.  Your job should be to submit your best evidence and try to change Dr. Condon's present disbelief."

For a second, Lore and I just looked at him, amazed.

"After all you've admitted about Condon?"  I demanded, "There's only one way you'll get us to resume—by Dr. Condon giving us a signed agreement to investigate certain selected cases, and that means a full check, interviewing the witnesses, and giving us copies of the evaluation.  We'll agree to keep them secret until the project ends and Condon's report is out."

On December 1, Condon and Low sent polite and complimentary letters to NICAP but offered no assurances.  Then senior CU psychologist David Saunders made an unexpected visit.  Keyhoe described a surprising disclosure.

He knew about Low's visit and the refusal letters.

"But before you do anything I want to tell you something.  First, take a look at this."  He handed me a photostat of a two-page memorandum signed by Low.  It was dated August 9, 1966, and addressed to CU officials E. James Archer, dean of the graduate school, and Thurston E. Manning, university vice-president.  Outlining some views of the proposed project, it stated:

In order to undertake such a project, one has to approach it objectively.  That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things (UFOs) exist.  It is not respectable to give serious consideration to such a possibility.  Believers, in other words, remain outcasts. . . . admitting such possibilities . . . puts us beyond the pale, and we would lose more in prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain by undertaking the investigation. . . .

Under the heading "Comments," Low made his proposal for handling the project if it were to be accepted:

Our study should be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers, who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations.  The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study, but to the scientific community would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.  One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of the physical phenomena, but rather the people who do the observing—the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs. . . .

Keyhoe confidentially told prominent UFOlogist Dr. James McDonald about the leaked memorandum.  McDonald proposed writing a letter to Low with a copy to Condon advising them about having obtained a copy of the memorandum.  Saunders and another project scientist who wanted a more thorough investigation, Dr. Norman Levine, agreed with McDonald that the letter should be sent.

On February 5, 1968, McDonald's fateful letter to Low arrived.  When Low and Condon read it they were furious.  As Saunders later told me, and stated in a book—UFOs?  Yes!—Condon harshly told him, "For an act like that [allowing McDonald to have the Low memo] you should be professionally ruined!"  Dr. Levine, Saunders said, was told his actions were "treacherous."  Both men were fired from the project the next day.

Keyhoe recounted the events surrounding the release of the Condon/Colorado University Report.

On October 31, 1968, the huge CU Project Report was delivered to the Air Force, and headquarters officers began a hurried review.

In the opening sections, Dr. Condon denied that UFOs were anything but illusions, failure to recognize ordinary objects, and fabricated reports.  Many witnesses, he declared, were inept, unduly excited or otherwise unreliable.  He also denied any threat to national security, any defense problem and any evidence of AF secrecy.  Since Condon's views as a UFO agnostic were fairly well known, these conclusions were no surprise to the AF officers.  The reviewers also assumed that the project members shared Condon's beliefs.  But when they got to the case analyses they had a shock.

Instead of solidly backing Condon, case after case showed strong evidence of UFO reality.  In nearly 30 per cent, scientist-analysts conceded that the objects sighted could not be explained with ordinary answers.  The high rating of the case witnesses was an added blow—most of the observers were astronauts, military and airline pilots, and other well-qualified specialists.


Sighting reports were still coming in when NAS returned the CU Report.  Braced for at least some criticism, AF censors were almost astonished by the verdict.

The NAS panel scientists unanimously accepted Dr. Condon's conclusions and praised the project for its "creditable" UFO study.  Fully agreeing with Condon, the panel said there was no evidence that UFOs were superior, unknown machines.  Most reports, it agreed, were mistakes—failure to recognize conventional causes.  There was no official secrecy, it stated, and no need for further UFO study.

For the scientists to have missed all the powerful UFO evidence and the damaging contradictions was impossible—if they actually read the full report.  Either they had read only Condon's two opening sections, or they had deliberately ignored everything disproving his conclusions.

Keyhoe explained that the report was released without a press conference, giving the newsmen time for only a hurried inspection before the scheduled release hour.

Once they had decided on these steamroller tactics, the AF PIOs waited a few more days, knowing the press corps would be busier as Inauguration Day approached.  On January 8, to pave the way, they released the NAS panel's verdict, stressing that this was a careful, serious review by the nation's top scientists.  After planting the panel's praise of Dr. Condon and the project study, the AF gave newsmen copies of the enormous report—for release the next day.

The effect was just what the PIOs had expected.  Faced with the impossible job of reading the huge document overnight, reporters and broadcasters begged for an AF press release summary.  Instead, PIOs tipped them off to the first two sections by Condon.  These, the AF men said, covered all the main points—everything they needed.


By the evening of January 9, AF Headquarters knew the steamroller had succeeded.  Combining Condon's conclusions with praise by the NAS, newspapers and networks told the nation that distinguished scientists had proved UFOs nonexistent.  Incredible as it may seem, not one of the glaring contradictions, the "hot" cases, was mentioned by the wire services or the networks.

Though Condon's report got the headlines, some sharp dissents went on record.  Congressman William Ryan attacked the conclusions on the floor of the House, urging an investigation of the project.  The American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics revealed a two-year objective, scientific investigation and rejected the CU Report.  At the same time, Dr. Hynek publicly denounced the project conclusions.  National columnist Roscoe Drummond urged a new, unbiased study, citing "too many unexplained UFOs."  The report was also criticized by scores of papers, among them the Detroit Free Press, the El Paso Times, the Knoxville Journal, the San Diego Tribune, the Dayton Daily News, and the Chattanooga Post.  The New York Daily News said the study "has been under fire from the start as allegedly rigged to bring in the verdict the Air Force wanted."

But none of the critics cited the "genuine UFO" conclusions or startling contradictions, since they had not had time to search through the 1,500-page report.  As a result, most of the press and networks paid little attention.

Within days, the initial publicity was followed by a 965-page paperback edition of the report.  Though the CU study had been financed by the taxpayers for a total of $523,000, the AF allowed Colorado University to publish a hard-cover copy and the Bantam paperback edition and keep the royalties.

The published editions presented an introduction by Walter Sullivan of the New York Times.

Belittling UFO witnesses, Sullivan said the CU Report proved the fallibility of airline pilots, radar operators and other "sober observers."


In the report itself, Condon first said most persons making UFO reports seemed to be normal, responsible individuals.  But this picture quickly changed.  Besides being inept, said Dr. Condon, some witnesses often compare notes and change their stories, perhaps unconsciously, until they agree.


Statements by some project scientists added to the ridicule of witnesses.  Eyewitness testimony was declared inherently unreliable.  Single-observer reports were mostly ruled out, with the implication that many witnesses could not be trusted without confirmation.  One project member suggested that some witnesses might be looking for fame, notoriety, attention or money.


As UFOs came back into the news, some of the press belatedly began checking the CU Report.  One I knew was a Washington TV commentator.  Halfway through, he told me he was amazed by the positive evidence ignored in the main conclusions.

"I see now why the AF rushed it through without giving us time to read it.  I think the whole AF investigation is phoney, and I'm going to put it up to the network to bust it wide open."

But two weeks later he told me higher-ups had vetoed it.

"They said we'd look like fools for backing the report without knowing what was in it.  And we'd set off a big row.  Not just with the AF—there are millions of people who don't want to believe that we're being watched by some race that's way ahead of us."

Paragraph biographies of many of the individuals mentioned in this article may be read at nicap.org.

This is the cover of the hardcover first edition of Aliens from Space.