After what he described as a promising beginning with a potential for scientific research, Hynek grew increasingly disenchanted with Blue Book during his tenure with the project, leveling accusations of indifference, incompetence, and of shoddy research on the part of Air Force personnel. Hynek notes that during its existence, critics dubbed Blue Book «The Society for the Explanation of the Uninvestigated.»

Blue Book was headed by Ruppelt, then Captain Hardin, Captain Gregory, Major Friend, and finally Major Hector Quintanilla. Hynek had kind words only for Ruppelt and Friend. Of Ruppelt, he wrote «In my contacts with him I found him to be honest and seriously puzzled about the whole phenomenon.» Of Friend, he wrote «Of all the officers I worked with in Blue Book, Colonel Friend earned my respect. Whatever private views he may have held, he was a total and practical realist, and sitting where he could see the scoreboard, he recognized the limitations of his office but conducted himself with dignity and a total lack of the bombast that characterized several of the other Blue Book heads.»

He held Quintanilla in especially low regard: «Quintanilla’s method was simple: disregard any evidence that was counter to his hypothesis.» Hynek wrote that during Air Force Major Hector Quintanilla’s tenure as Blue Book’s director, “the flag of the utter nonsense school was flying at its highest on the mast.” Hynek reported that Sergeant David Moody, one of Quintanilla’s subordinates, “epitomized the conviction-before-trial method. Anything that he didn’t understand or didn’t like was immediately put into the psychological category, which meant ‘crackpot’.”

Hynek reported bitter exchanges with Moody when the latter refused to research UFO sightings thoroughly, describing Moody as “the master of the possible: possible balloon, possible aircraft, possible birds, which then became, by his own hand (and I argued with him violently at times) the probable.”

From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was terminated December 17, 1969. Of a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 remained «unidentified.»

The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an evaluation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, «Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects;» a review of the University of Colorado’s report by the National Academy of Sciences; previous UFO studies and Air Force experience investigating UFO reports during 1940 to 1969.

As a result of these investigations, studies and experience gained from investigating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project Blue Book were:

No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security.

There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as «unidentified» represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.

There has been no evidence indicating the sightings categorized as «unidentified» are extraterrestrial vehicles.

With the termination of Project Blue Book, the Air Force regulation establishing and controlling the program for investigating and analyzing UFOs was rescinded. Documentation regarding the former Blue Book investigation was permanently transferred to the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Service, and is available for public review and analysis.

Since the termination of Project Blue Book, nothing has occurred that would support a resumption of UFO investigations by the Air Force.

There are a number of universities and professional scientific organizations that have considered UFO phenomena during periodic meetings and seminars. A list of private organizations interested in aerial phenomena may be found in «Encyclopaedia of Associations», published by Gale Research. Interest in and timely review of UFO reports by private groups ensures that sound evidence is not overlooked by the scientific community. Persons wishing to report UFO sightings should be advised to contact local law enforcement agencies.

After examining hundreds of UFO files from the Air Force’s Project Blue Book and from the civilian UFO groups National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO), and investigating sightings reported during the life of the Project, the Committee produced a Final Report that said the study of UFOs was unlikely to yield major scientific discoveries.

The Report’s conclusions were generally welcomed by the scientific community and have been cited as a decisive factor in the generally low level of interest in UFO activity among academics since that time. According to a principal critic of the Report, it is «the most influential public document concerning the scientific status of this UFO problem. Hence, all current scientific work on the UFO problem must make reference to the Condon Report»

Background

Beginning in 1947 with Project Sign, which then became Project Grudge and finally Project Blue Book, the U.S. Air Force conducted formal studies of UFOs, a subject of considerable public and some governmental interest. Blue Book had come under increasing criticism in the 1960s. Growing numbers of critics—including U.S. politicians, newspaper writers, UFO researchers, scientists and some of the general public—were suggesting that Blue Book was conducting shoddy, unsupported research or perpetrating a cover up. The Air Force did not want to continue its studies but did not want a cessation of studies to provoke additional charges of a cover up. UFOs had become such a controversial issue that no other government agency was willing to take on further UFO studies.

Following a wave of UFO reports in 1965, astronomer and Blue Book consultant J. Allen Hynek wrote a letter to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AFSAB) suggesting that a panel convene to re-examine Blue Book. The AFSAB agreed and the committee it formed, chaired by Brian O’Brien, convened for one day in February, 1966, and suggested UFO studies could be undertaken «in more detail and depth than had been possible to date» and that the U.S. Air Force should work «with a few selected universities to provide scientific teams» to study UFOs. The Committee suggested that about 100 well-documented UFO sightings should be studied annually, with about 10 man-days devoted to each case.

At a Congressional UFO hearing on April 5, 1966, Air Force Secretary Harold Brown defended the Air Force’s UFO studies and repeated the O’Brien Committee’s call for more studies. Hynek repeated his call for «a civilian panel of physical and social scientists» to «examine the UFO problem critically for the express purpose of determining whether a major problem exists.» Shortly after the hearing, the Air Force announced it was seeking one or more universities to undertake a study of UFOs. The Air Force wanted to have several groups, but it took some time to find even a single school willing to accept the Air Force’s offer. Both Hynek and James E. McDonald suggested their own campuses, Northwestern University and the University of Arizona, and others suggested astronomer Donald Menzel. All were judged too closely allied with one position or another. Walter Orr Roberts, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Menzel suggested physicist Edward Condon of the University of Colorado.

In the summer of 1966, Condon agreed to consider the Air Force’s offer. He was among the best known and most distinguished scientists of his time. Condon’s tenacious encounters with the House Unamerican Activities Committee and other government Loyalty Boards in the 1940s and 1950s made him «almost legendary» among fellow scientists. On Condon’s behalf, Robert J. Low, an assistant dean of the university’s graduate program, explored faculty reaction to the proposed project and found it mixed and wary. He tried to reassure those who found the enterprise unworthy of scientific investigation. Low told the Denver Post that the project had met the University’s acceptance threshold by the narrowest of margins and was accepted largely because it was difficult to say no to the Air Force. Some have suggested that finances were factor in Colorado’s decision to accept the Air Force’s offer of $313,000 for the project. Condon dismissed this suggestion, noting that $313,000 was a rather modest budget for an undertaking sch
eduled to last more than a year with a staff of over a dozen.

On October 6, 1966, the University of Colorado agreed to undertake the UFO study, with Condon as director, Low as coordinator, and Saunders and astronomer Franklin Roach as co-principal investigators. The Air Force announced its selection of Condon and the University of Colorado in October 1966. Other Committee members included astronomer William K. Hartmann; psychologists Michael Wertheimer, Dan Culbertson and James Wadsworth, a graduate student; chemist Roy Craig; electrical engineer Norman Levine; and physicist Frederick Ayer. Several other scientists or experts served in part-time and temporary roles or as consultants. Public response to the Committee’s announcement was generally positive

When the Project was announced, The Nation, commented: «If Dr. Condon and his associates come up with anything less than the little green men from Mars, they will be crucified.»

Committee work

In November 1966, Keyhoe and Richard Hall, both of NICAP, briefed the panel. They agreed to share NICAP’s research files and to improve the collection of UFO reports. The Committee also secured help from APRO, a civilian UFO research group. The Committee moved slowly, hampered by disagreements about the use of funds and methodology. By hiring people with no prior position on UFOs, the Committee staff lacked expertise and subject matter expertise. As they began their analyses, Committee members usually worked without coordination with one another. Individuals embraced diverse approaches, especially with respect to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).

In late January 1967, Condon said in a lecture that he thought the government should not study UFOs because the subject was nonsense, adding, «but I’m not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year.» One NICAP member resigned from NICAP in protest and Saunders confronted Condon to express his concern that NICAP’s withdrawal would eliminate a valuable source of case files and produce damaging publicity.

Low memo controversy

In July 1967, James E. McDonald, a confirmed believer in the validity of UFO sightings, learned from a Committee member about a memo Low had written on August 9, 1966, in which he reassured two University of Colorado administrators that they could expect the study to demonstrate that UFO observations had no basis in reality. McDonald, after locating a copy of the memo in the project’s open files, wrote to Condon, quoting a few lines from it.

In response to the memo, on April 30, 1968, NICAP severed its ties with the Committee and Kehoe circulated copies of Low’s memo. Press coverage included an article in the May 1968 issue of Look, «Flying Saucer Fiasco», that presented interviews with Saunders and Levine, detailed the controversy, and described the project as a «$500,000 trick.» Condon responded that the article contained «falsehoods and misrepresentations.» Scientific and technical journals reported the controversy. Representative J. Edward Roush said the Look article raised «grave doubts as to the scientific profundity and objectivity of the project.» He held a hearing dominated by critics of the Project. Low resigned from the Project in May 1968.

Some later critics of the Committee’s work saw little reason to make much of the memo. Committee member David Saunders wrote that «to present Low as a plotter or conspirator is unfair and hardly accurate.» Project investigator Roy Craig’s later wrote that the memo did not trouble him because Condon had not known of the Low memo for eighteen months and it did not reflect his views. Condon wrote in the Project’s Final Report that the memo’s description of the Project as emphasizing the «psychology and sociology» of those who report UFO sightings showed how completely Low misunderstood the Project when he wrote the memo.

Final months

Despite the withdrawal of NICAP from the Project, members of its Early Warning Network continued to report sightings to the investigators, as did journalists.

Scientists who anticipated the Committee would recommend against continued government UFO research rushed their own refutation into print in advance of the Committee’s Final Report. Called UFO’s Y

Committee Report

The Committee delivered its Report to the Air Force in November 1968, which released it in January 1969. The Report, 1,485 pages in hardcover and 965 pages in paperback, divided UFO cases into five categories: old UFO reports from before the Committee convened, new reports, photographic cases, radar/visual cases, and UFOs reported by astronauts. Some UFO cases fell into multiple categories. Condon authored 6 pages of «conclusions and recommendations,» a 43-page «summary,» and a 50-page history of UFO phenomena and research over the preceding twenty years.

In his introductory «Conclusions and Recommendations», Condon wrote: «Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.» He also recommended against the creation of a government program to investigate UFO reports. He also described the problem that confronts the scientific community, that each scientist must evaluate the record for himself, and that the Report’s recommendation against further research «may not be true for all time.» He advised that government agencies and private foundations «ought to be willing to consider UFO research proposals…on an open-minded, unprejudiced basis….ach individual case ought to be carefully considered on its own merits.» In particular, the Report noted that there were gaps in scientific
knowledge in the fields of «atmospheric optics, including radio wave propagation, and of atmospheric electricity» that might benefit from further research in the UFO field.

The Report detailed 59 case studies, though for legal reasons their locations were changed. New York Times science editor Walter Sullivan, in his introduction to the published version of the Report, said the series «reads like a modern, real-life collection of Sherlock Holmes episodes. The cases range from the eerily perplexing to the preposterously naive. The reader is given a taste of scientific method, even though the cases are often such that they defy anything approaching deductive analysis.» Six chapters covered field studies of such physical evidence as electromagnetic affects, and visual and radar images. One treated the observations of U.S. astronauts.

Notably in Case 02 in Section IV, Chapter 2 the report said of the 1956 Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident: «In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high.»

Even before its completion, the Air Force had asked the National Academy of Sciences to «provide an independent assessment of the scope, the methodology, and the findings» of the Committee. A panel chaired by Yale astronomer Gerald M. Clemence studied the Report for six weeks and concluded that «on the basis of present knowledge the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings» and that «no high priority in UFO investigations is warranted by data of the past two decades.»

In response to the Report’s findings, the Air Force closed Project Blue Book, established in March 1952, on December 17, 1969.

Assessments

The Report earned a mixed reception from scientists and academic journals, while receiving «almost universal praise from the news media». Many newspapers, magazines and journals which published approving reviews or editorials related to the Condon Report. Some compared any continued belief in UFOs as the belief that the earth is flat. Others predicted that interest in UFOs would wane and in a few generations be only dimly remembered. Science, the official publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said «The Colorado Study is unquestionably the most thorough and sophisticated investigation of the nebulous UFO phenomenon ever conducted.»

The March 8, 1969 issue of Nature offered a generally positive review for the Condon Report, but wondered why so much effort had been expended on such a subject: «The Colorado project is a monumental achievement, but one of perhaps misapplied ingenuity. It would doubtless be inapt to compare it with earlier centuries’ attempts to calculate how many angels could balance on the point of a pin; it is more like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, except that the nuts will be quite immune to its impact.» On January 8, 1969, the New York Times headlined its coverage: «U.F.O. Finding: No Visits From Afar.» The article said that based on the Report, the ETH could finally be dismissed and all UFO reports had prosaic explanations. It noted that the Report had its critics, but characterized them as «U.F.O. enthusiasts.»

Critics made their case repeatedly without obtaining the government support they sought. One described the Report as «a rather unorganized compilation of independent articles on disparate subjects, a minority of which dealt with UFOs.» Hynek described the Report as «a voluminous, rambling, poorly organized» and wrote that «less than half…was addressed to the investigation of UFO reports.» In the April 14, 1969 issue of Scientific Research, Robert L. M. Baker, Jr. wrote that the Condon Committee’s Report «seems to justify scientific investigation along many general and specialized frontiers.» In the December 1969 issue of Physics Today, Committee consultant Gerald Rothberg wrote that he had thoroughly investigated about 100 UFO cases, three of four of which left him puzzled. He thought that this «residue of unexplained reports legitimate scientific controversy.» Critics charged that Condon’s case summaries were inaccurate or misleading with enigmatic reports «buried» among the confirmed cases.

In December 1969, physicist James E. McDonald called the Report «inadequate» and said «it represents an examination of only a tiny fraction of the most puzzling UFO reports of the past two decades, and that its level of scientific argumentation is wholly unsatisfactory.» In a 1969 issue of the American Journal of Physics, Thornton Page reviewed the Condon Report and wrote: «Intelligent laymen can (and do) point out the logical flaw in Condon’s conclusion based on a statistically small (and selected) sample, Even in this sample a consistent pattern can be recognized; it is ignored by the ‘authorities,’ who then compound their ‘felony’ by recommending that no further observational data be collected.»

In November 1970, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics generally agreed with Condon’s suggestion that little of value had been uncovered by scientific UFO studies, but «did not find a basis in the report for prediction that nothing of scientific value will come of further studies.»

Principal critics

Astronomer J. Allen Hynek wrote that «The Condon Report settled nothing.» He called Condon’s introduction «singularly slanted» and wrote that it «avoided mentioning that there was embedded within the bowels of the report a remaining mystery; that the committee had been unable to furnish adequate explanations for more than a quarter of the cases examined.» Hynek contended that «Condon did not understand the nature and scope of the problem» he was studying and objected to the idea that only extraterrestrial life could explain UFO activity. By focusing on this hypothesis, he wrote, the Report «did not try to establish whether UFOs really constituted a problem for the scientist, whether physical or social.»

Astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock wrote that «critical reviews…came from scientists who had actually carried out research in the UFO area, while the laudatory reviews came from scientists who had not carried out such research.» As an example, Sturrock noted a case in which an allegedly supersonic UFO did not produce a sonic boom. He notes that «we should not assume that a more advanced civilization could not find some way at traveling with supersonic speeds without producing a sonic boom.»

Additionally, Blum reports that Freedom of Information Act requests show that the U.S. Air Force has continued to catalog and track UFO sightings, particularly a series of dozens of UFO encounters from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s that occurred at U.S. military facilities with nuclear weapons. Blum writes that some of these official documents depart drastically from the normally dry and bureaucratic wording of government paperwork, making obvious the sense of «terror» that these UFO incidents inspired in many U.S.A.F. personnel.

Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was their massive statistical analysis of Blue Book cases to date, some 3200 by the time the report was completed in 1954, after Ruppelt had left Blue Book. Even today, it represents the largest such study ever undertaken. Battelle employed four scientific analysts, who sought to divide cases into «knowns», «unknowns», and a third category of «insufficient information.» They also broke down knowns and unknowns into four categories of quality, from excellent to poor. E.g., cases deemed excellent might typically involve experienced witnesses such as airline pilots or trained military personnel, multiple witnesses, corroborating evidence such as radar contact or photographs, etc. In order for a case to be deemed a «known», only two analysts had to independently agree on a solution. However, for a case to be called an «unknown», all four analysts had to agree. Thus the criterion for an «unknown» was quite stringent.

In addition, sightings were broken down into six different characteristics — color, number, duration of observation, brightness, shape, and speed — and then these characteristics were compared between knowns and unknowns to see if there was a statistically significant difference.

The main results of the statistical analysis were:

About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still «doubtfully» explained); about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed «unknown», down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies.

In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations. Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or «crackpot» cases. A «miscellaneous» category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.

The higher the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified unknown. 35% of the excellent cases were deemed unknowns, as opposed to only 18% of the poorest cases. This was the exact opposite of the result predicted by skeptics, who usually argued unknowns were poorer quality cases involving unreliable witnesses that could be solved if only better information were available.

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.

(More detailed statistics can be found at Identified flying objects.)

Despite this, the summary section of the Battelle Institute’s final report declared it was «highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects… represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge.» A number of researchers, including Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who extensively reviewed the data, have noted that the conclusions of the analysts were usually at odds with their own statistical results, displayed in 240 charts, tables, graphs and maps. Some conjecture that the analysts may simply have had trouble accepting their own results or may have written the conclusions to satisfy the new political climate within Blue Book following the Robertson Panel.

When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it was claimed that the report scientifically proved that UFOs did not exist. Critics of this claim note that the report actually proved that the «unknowns» were distinctly different from the «knowns» at a very high statistical significance level. The Air Force also incorrectly claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%. They further claimed that the residual 3% would probably disappear if more complete data were available. Critics counter that this ignored the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of «insufficient information», whereas both «knowns» and «unknowns» were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination. Also the «unknowns» tended to represent the higher quality cases, q.e. reports that already had better information and witnesses.

The result of the monumental BMI study were echoed by a 1979 French GEPAN report which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, stating, in part, «These cases … pose a real question.» When GEPAN’s successor SEPRA closed in 2004, 5800 cases had been analyzed, and the percentage of inexplicable unknowns had dropped to about 14%. The head of SEPRA, Dr. Jean-Jacques Velasco, found the evidence of extraterrestrial origins so convincing in these remaining unknowns, that he wrote a book about it in 2005.

Out of 1,307 cases Hendry deemed 88.6% had clear prosaic explanations (IFOs) and only 8.6% were unknowns (UFOs). Of the UFOs, Hendry reported that 7.1%, might still have a prosaic explanation while 1.5% (20 cases) had no possible plausible explanation and were completely unexplained. The remaining miscellaneous cases (2.8%) were “garbage” cases, where Hendry deemed the witnesses unreliable, the reports hopelessly contradictory, or lacking in sufficient information.

Overall, in the three major categories, 42% of all cases had astronomical explanations, 37% were aircraft, and 5% were balloons. A further breakdown allowed 77% to be readily explained by five main classes of objects: 29% were bright stars or planets, 19% were advertising planes, 15% were other aircraft, 9% were meteors and reentering space debris, and 5% were balloons of various types (mostly weather or advertising balloons but also a few prank balloons).

In the initial results, all characteristics except brightness tested significant at less or much less than 1% (brightness was greater than 5%). By removing «astronomical» sightings from the «knowns» and redoing the test, just two categories, number and speed, were significant at less than 1%, the remainder having results between 3% and 5%. This indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the characteristics ascribed to UFOs and IFOs, but perhaps not as significant as the initial results suggested. For two characteristics, brightness and speed, the significance actually increased with the revised test.

In addition, if a case was lacking in adequate data, it was placed in the insufficient information category, separate from both IFOs and UFOs.

The human foot has already trod on the lunar surface, however, visit all corners of the satellite of our planet — not an easy task. One of the most beautiful and most secret places on the Moon is round plain, which is surrounded by a ring of mountains, it is also called » Plato Circus» This beautiful place has attracted the attention of astronomers and ufologists. Although, in this valley, there isn’t a lot of anomalies, there are periods, when there is incredible activity, explain what is not so easy. In the distant 1686 astronomer Francesco Bianchini, during the eclipse of the moon, said that from the Moon and to the Earth stretches bright red and blue pillar of light. There was an impression, that someone tried to build a bridge and escape from the embrace of darkness. Later it was found that the light originated in the above-mentioned plains. The last such phenomenon was seen by astronomers in 1927. This mysterious phenomenon has not received an explanation to our days. Scientists and astronomers have reviewed several possible causes of glowing, but none of them has no effect. Some ufologists put forward their point of view. Watching the glow, experts on UFOs noticed that the light on the moon took place not only in the «Plato Circus», but in some places, like someone lit the fuses for the light. In their view, a mysterious light can be a kind of beacon, but for whom?..