Within Colorado UFOs
How Colorado Helped End Project Blue Book
Colorado's university-led UFO study found unresolved cases but no verified extraordinary craft, helping persuade the Air Force to close Blue Book.
On this page
- Why the Air Force commissioned the Colorado study
- What the project examined and concluded
- Why critics still dispute its legacy
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The Condon Report was Colorado’s most consequential contribution to United States UFO history. Commissioned by the US Air Force and conducted at the University of Colorado from 1966 to 1968, the study examined whether UFO reports offered a promising field for scientific research. Its investigators found some cases that they could not confidently explain, but no verified extraordinary craft, unknown technology or extraterrestrial vehicle. Project director Edward Condon concluded that a large continuing programme was unlikely to advance science.
That judgement helped the Air Force end Project Blue Book, its long-running public UFO investigation, in December 1969. The closure did not mean that every report had been solved: 701 of the 12,618 sightings recorded by Blue Book remained classified as unidentified. Rather, officials decided that the unresolved residue had produced neither evidence of a national-security threat nor reliable proof of technology beyond contemporary scientific knowledge.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives…
The lasting dispute is therefore not simply about whether the Colorado project “believed in UFOs”. It is about whether unexplained reports justified a permanent scientific programme, and whether Condon’s sweeping policy recommendation followed fairly from the detailed case studies beneath it.
Why the Air Force commissioned the Colorado study
By the mid-1960s, Project Blue Book had become difficult for the Air Force to manage as both an investigative programme and a public-relations responsibility. UFO reports continued to generate press attention, while critics accused the service either of dismissing credible witnesses or concealing important evidence. The politically embarrassing Michigan sightings of March 1966, followed by astronomer J. Allen Hynek’s much-ridiculed suggestion that some observations might involve “swamp gas”, increased pressure for a review outside the Air Force’s own chain of command.
The proposed solution was an independent university study. The Air Force contracted the University of Colorado to assess the scientific value of UFO evidence rather than merely process another batch of sightings. Physicist Edward U. Condon served as scientific director. The project consulted Blue Book personnel, Hynek and representatives of civilian groups, including the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena. It also considered old files, new reports received while the project was active, photographs, radar observations, alleged physical traces and astronaut sightings.[files.ncas.org]files.ncas.orgCondon Report, Section IISummary of the Study…
This arrangement mattered because it shifted the question. The Colorado team was not asked only, “What was this particular light?” Its larger task was to decide whether the entire subject deserved sustained scientific investment. That distinction explains how a report could contain unresolved incidents yet still recommend ending a dedicated federal investigation.
The study also revealed an unavoidable practical problem. Most sightings lasted only minutes and were reported after the object had disappeared. Researchers initially hoped that field teams might reach scenes in time to photograph an object, obtain a spectrum or record magnetic and radiation measurements. In practice, travel and reporting delays made direct observation almost impossible. A genuinely rapid national response system would have required numerous trained teams, extensive publicity and substantial annual expenditure, while probably generating many more mistaken or frivolous reports.[files.ncas.org]files.ncas.orgCondon Report, Section IISummary of the Study…
The choice facing the investigators was consequently not between perfect knowledge and deliberate ignorance. It was between continuing a costly, reactive system built mainly around witness interviews and redirecting resources towards better-defined work in astronomy, atmospheric physics, radar propagation and aviation safety.
What the project examined and concluded
The final publication, formally titled Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, was a large collection of specialised chapters rather than one continuous argument. University of Colorado records describe 59 sighting case studies spanning 1947 to 1968, with contributions from dozens of scientists. The cases covered older reports, incidents occurring during the contract, photographs, radar-visual encounters and observations attributed to astronauts.[University of Colorado]colorado.eduOpen source on colorado.edu.
Investigators repeatedly encountered the same limitations that had troubled Blue Book:
- uncertain estimates of distance, size and speed;
- incomplete weather, radar or flight records;
- photographs without secure provenance or useful reference points;
- witnesses interviewed too long after an event;
- optical and radar effects that could imitate structured movement;
- reports selected because they were already unusual, rather than gathered through a controlled observing programme.
The project nevertheless treated several cases as genuinely puzzling. “Unexplained” in this setting meant that the available evidence did not support a confident identification. It did not establish that the reported object was a physical craft, still less an extraterrestrial one. In some radar cases, for example, the report considered abnormal propagation — the bending of radar signals through unusually layered air — as a plausible way to produce apparently moving targets.[files.ncas.org]files.ncas.orgCondon Report, Sec III, Chapter 5: Optical & Radar AnalysisIn summary, it appears that this is a case of observations of moving AP-echoes…
Condon’s central conclusion was broader than any single case finding. He argued that 21 years of UFO investigation had added nothing of clear scientific importance and that further extensive study was unlikely to produce major advances. He did not demand a permanent prohibition on research: the report explicitly allowed that scientists with specific, well-designed proposals should be able to seek support. What he opposed was a major standing agency devoted to collecting UFO reports simply because they were unidentified.[files.ncas.org]files.ncas.orgCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & RecommendationsCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations
The report also separated scientific and defence responsibilities. Its authors said they had found no indication of a defence hazard but acknowledged that the military might still need to examine unusual observations through ordinary intelligence and surveillance channels. Condon’s recommendation was that this function did not require a special unit such as Project Blue Book.[files.ncas.org]files.ncas.orgCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & RecommendationsCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations
That became the policy bridge from Boulder to Washington. A National Academy of Sciences panel reviewed the Colorado report’s scope, methods and findings and agreed that evidence from the preceding two decades did not warrant high-priority UFO investigation. The Academy’s endorsement gave the Air Force more institutional cover than Condon’s opinion alone could have provided.[NICAP]nicap.orgNAS Review of Condon Report 1969NAS Review of Condon Report 1969
How the report brought Project Blue Book to an end
On 17 December 1969, Secretary of the Air Force Robert C. Seamans Jr announced the termination of Project Blue Book. His statement said that continuing the programme could not be justified on national-security or scientific grounds and did not merit further expenditure. The decision rested on four elements: the Colorado report, the National Academy review, earlier official studies and the Air Force’s own experience investigating sightings.[Defense Logistics Agency]esd.whs.milDefense Logistics Agency
The Air Force summarised its position in three findings:
- No investigated UFO had shown evidence of being a threat to national security.
- No unidentified sighting had demonstrated scientific principles or technology beyond contemporary knowledge.
- No evidence showed that unidentified sightings were extraterrestrial vehicles.
These were claims about the evidence received and evaluated by the programme, not proof that every unusual object in American airspace had been identified. The distinction is important because Blue Book’s archive still included 701 unresolved reports. Officials regarded those cases as insufficiently evidenced rather than positively extraordinary.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives…
Project Blue Book’s records were transferred into archival custody and were later made publicly available. The closure therefore ended a dedicated Air Force reporting and investigative mechanism, not military awareness of unusual objects. Potential defence concerns could still be handled by intelligence, air-defence and surveillance systems without maintaining “UFO investigation” as a separate public programme.[files.ncas.org]files.ncas.orgCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & RecommendationsCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations
For Colorado, the episode was unusually significant. A university in Boulder had not merely investigated reports from within the state; it had helped determine how the federal government would classify and govern the subject nationally. The state became associated with both UFO reporting and the institutional decision that such reporting, by itself, did not justify an open-ended scientific bureaucracy.
Why critics still dispute its legacy
The strongest criticism of the Condon Report is not that it failed to prove extraterrestrial visitation. No credible reading of its evidence does that. The central objection is that its negative recommendation appeared stronger than some of its case-level findings.
Critics including atmospheric physicist James McDonald and Blue Book consultant J. Allen Hynek argued that several difficult cases survived close examination and therefore merited better investigation rather than institutional closure. McDonald maintained that significant unexplained incidents within the report itself showed the need for more rigorous work. Later assessments likewise noted a tension between Condon’s dismissive summary and chapters whose authors remained uncertain about particular observations.[kirkmcd.princeton.edu]kirkmcd.princeton.edumcdonald aaas 69mcdonald aaas 69
This criticism has force, but it does not settle the policy question. A case may remain unresolved because its data are too poor to discriminate between ordinary explanations. Accumulating more such cases does not necessarily create a scientifically productive research field. Condon’s argument was essentially about expected return: years of investigations had produced many stories, some anomalies and little reproducible physical evidence.
A second controversy concerned the project’s apparent neutrality. An internal memorandum written by project administrator Robert Low before the contract was finalised suggested that a study conducted largely by sceptics could assemble an impressive body of evidence against the reality of UFO claims while preserving the appearance of objectivity. When the memorandum became public, it damaged confidence among project staff and civilian UFO organisations. Contemporary reporting documented serious internal conflict, although later participants disagreed over whether the memo represented a genuine plan, an awkward attempt to secure university approval or Low’s views alone.[jstor.org]jstor.orgOpen source on jstor.org.
The memo does not prove that every investigation was manipulated. The final report contains substantial technical work, openly records uncertainties and sometimes rejects easy explanations. Yet it helps explain why many readers saw the project as predisposed towards closure. Institutional credibility depends not only on competent analysis but also on a visibly fair process.
A third criticism concerns what the National Academy review actually established. The panel endorsed the Colorado project’s general conclusion, but it did not conduct an entirely new investigation of the original sightings or invite every major scientific critic to present a competing case. Its approval strengthened the report’s standing as a policy document; it did not convert every disputed case judgement into an independently verified scientific finding.[NICAP]nicap.orgNAS Review of Condon Report 1969NAS Review of Condon Report 1969
Nor was the scientific response completely uniform. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics later agreed that earlier study had produced little of value but questioned whether the report justified predicting that future research could yield nothing scientifically important. That more cautious position captures the difference between saying “no extraordinary craft has been demonstrated” and saying “this subject can never reward better observation”.[Wikipedia]WikipediaCondon CommitteeCondon Committee
What the Colorado study established — and what it did not
The Condon Report substantially weakened the case for maintaining Project Blue Book in its existing form. It showed how rarely retrospective witness reports supplied measurements capable of testing extraordinary claims. It found no verified alien vehicle, no demonstrable unknown propulsion system and no evidence that UFO reports as a class represented a national-security threat. Combined with the National Academy’s review and two decades of Air Force experience, that was enough to end the programme.
It did not prove that every witness was mistaken, that every Blue Book file had a satisfactory explanation or that unusual aerial observations should never be investigated. Even Condon allowed for properly designed research on specific questions, while recommending continued work on atmospheric phenomena and better training for pilots and astronauts in recognising unfamiliar effects.[files.ncas.org]files.ncas.orgCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & RecommendationsCondon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations
The fairest historical judgement is therefore narrower than either side’s slogan. The Colorado project found unresolved cases but no verified extraordinary craft. Its practical conclusion was that a dedicated programme centred on collecting belated, inconsistent reports was unlikely to resolve that gap. Critics were right that “unidentified” cases remained and that the project’s internal disputes weakened public trust. Condon was right that unresolved testimony is not, by itself, positive evidence for an exotic explanation.
That tension is why the report still matters. It ended one phase of official UFO investigation, but it did not end the underlying problem of how governments should handle observations that may be mundane, mistaken, secret, hazardous or genuinely unexplained.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to How Colorado Helped End Project Blue Book. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry
Hynek's perspective is central to debates over scientific investigation of UFO reports.
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects
Provides background on Project Blue Book, which the Condon study helped bring to a close.
UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry
Directly addresses government investigations and the policy context surrounding the Condon Report.
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Re...
Explores how governments and officials have approached unexplained sightings.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromProject Blue Book collectible oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos
Source snippet
National ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives...
2.
Source: esd.whs.mil
Title: Defense Logistics Agency
Link:https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/asdpa1.pdf?ver=2017-05-22-113454-807
3.
Source: files.ncas.org
Title: Condon Report, Section II
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-ii.htm
Source snippet
Summary of the Study...
4.
Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/contents.htm
Source snippet
Condon Report, Table of ContentsSECTION I Conclusions and Recommendations 2 SECTION II Summary of the Study 10. Chapter 1 Case Studies Pr...
5.
Source: colorado.edu
Link:https://www.colorado.edu/coloradan/2021/11/05/condon-report-cu-boulders-historic-ufo-study
6.
Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/
Source snippet
NCAS presents the Condon Report on UFOsNCAS presents the Condon Report on UFOs SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS Conducted...
7.
Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap05.htm
Source snippet
Condon Report, Sec III, Chapter 5: Optical & Radar AnalysisIn summary, it appears that this is a case of observations of moving AP-echoes...
8.
Source: files.ncas.org
Title: Condon Report, Section I: Conclusions & Recommendations
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-i.htm
9.
Source: nicap.org
Title: NAS Review of Condon Report 1969
Link:https://www.nicap.org/docs/NAS%20Review%20of%20Condon%20Report%201969.pdf
10.
Source: kirkmcd.princeton.edu
Title: mcdonald aaas 69
Link:https://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_aaas_69.pdf
11.
Source: archive.org
Link:https://archive.org/stream/TheHynekUFOReport/The_Hynek_UFO_Report_djvu.txt
12.
Source: jstor.org
Link:https://www.jstor.org/stable/1724207
13.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Condon Committee
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee
14.
Source: kirkmcd.princeton.edu
Link:https://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_aa_9_7_66_71.pdf
15.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book
16.
Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap02.htm
17.
Source: files.ncas.org
Title: appndx u
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-u.htm
18.
Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap03.htm
19.
Source: ncas.org
Title: September 8
Link:https://www.ncas.org/2018/08/september-8-ufos-air-force-and-colorado.html
20.
Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap01.htm
21.
Source: prologue.blogs.archives.gov
Title: saucers over washington the history of project blue book
Link:https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2019/12/19/saucers-over-washington-the-history-of-project-blue-book/
22.
Source: archives.gov
Title: Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/foia/ufos.html
23.
Source: archives.gov
Title: uap bulk download
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/catalog-bulk-downloads/uap-bulk-download
24.
Source: kirkmcd.princeton.edu
Title: mcdonald nicap 061069
Link:https://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_nicap_061069.pdf
25.
Source: archive.org
Link:https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-4vyHjooOJagoGAwN/Scientific%2BStudy%2BOf%2BUnidentified%2BFlying%2BObjects_djvu.txt
26.
Source: jstor.org
Link:https://www.jstor.org/stable/1725090
27.
Source: history.com
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:https://www.history.com/articles/project-blue-book
28.
Source: history.com
Title: j allen hynek ufos project blue book
Link:https://www.history.com/articles/j-allen-hynek-ufos-project-blue-book
29.
Source: media.defense.gov
Title: DOPSR 2024 0263 AARO HISTORICAL RECORD REPORT VOLUME 1 2024
Link:https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/08/2003409233/-1/-1/0/DOPSR-2024-0263-AARO-HISTORICAL-RECORD-REPORT-VOLUME-1-2024.PDF
30.
Source: time.com
Link:https://time.com/archive/6874890/science-closing-the-blue-book/
31.
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
Source snippet
The Condon Report | NASA's Unexplained Files...
32.
Source: youtube.com
Title: The Condon Report | NASA’s Unexplained Files
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W7SqS6UhE4
Source snippet
Project Blue Book: America's Obsession with UFOs...
33.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Project Blue Book: America’s Obsession with UFOs
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu4oTBBI5UE
Source snippet
Project Blue Book...
34.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjinS2lZAsY
Source snippet
The Scientist Who Failed to Disprove UFOs...
35.
Source: bentley.umich.edu
Title: Bentley Historical Library Flying Saucers and Swamp Gas
Link:https://bentley.umich.edu/news-events/magazine/flying-saucers-and-swamp-gas/
36.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/485702340808422/posts/1003041539074497/
37.
Source: ouci.dntb.gov.ua
Link:https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/lxR8pLL7/
38.
Source: encyclopedia.com
Title: condon report
Link:https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/condon-report
39.
Source: slideshare.net
Link:https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/project-blue-book-140388203/140388203
Additional References
40.
Source: science.org
Link:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.170.3958.599
41.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010011-9.pdf
42.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010008-3.pdf
43.
Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224791605Physical_Evidence_Related_to_UFO_Reports_The_Proceedings_of_a_Workshop_Held_at_the_Pocantico_Conference_Center_Tarrytown_New_York_September_29-_October
44.
Source: archivesfoundation.org
Link:https://archivesfoundation.org/documents/50-years-ago-government-stops-investigating-ufos/
45.
Source: governmentattic.org
Link:https://www.governmentattic.org/13docs/UFOsRelatedSubjBiblio_Catoe_1969.pdf
46.
Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/34480511/An-Analysis-of-the-Condon-Report-on-the-Colorado-UFO-Project-By-Peter-Sturrock
47.
Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/doc/53729897/Condon-the-Scientific-Study-of-UFOss
48.
Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/561614085/CondonReport-Complete
49.
Source: txarchives.org
Link:https://txarchives.org/tamucush/finding_aids/00151.xml