The Condon Report
. . . The Colorado University report, known more widely as the Condon Report, was massive. At over 950 pages in its soon-to-be published paperback form, it probably fulfilled Robert Low's desire to "build the record." Despite its intimidating length, however, the Condon Report suffered from several major failings. In the places where it counted most – the case studies – the report was skimpy. Why, a reader might ask, with 18 months to investigate, did the project produce so few studies? True, many reports were conducted more thoroughly than Blue Book, NICAP, or APRO had done, but 58 cases is still not much to go on. Of the 550 then-unexplained reports in the Blue Book files, the Colorado Project had considered only three. Also, many of the sightings investigated by the project were poor bets to begin with.
Probably the most striking discrepancy in the report, however, was between its contents and conclusions. Condon had concluded that science could gain nothing from studying UFOs. Yet, the report ended up with a near 30 percent unexplained rate, and a core of cases that came within a hair's breadth of being conclusive evidence for the reality of alien technology – cases which, under the most rigorous analysis, appeared to be the result of extraordinary craft in the skies.
Ironically, the Condon Report, which rejected so many cases as "lacking probative value," itself lacked value as a definitive statement of the UFO phenomenon. The fact that it showed most UFO sightings to be the result of natural or conventional causes was nothing new: everyone had known that for years. From the beginning, Condon and Low were clear in their belief that all UFO sightings could be explained conventionally. While Condon chose to ignore the unsettling data contained within the project's report, he could not hide the glaring reality: the Colorado Project failed to get the strikeout.