of 21st century (or 30th century) physics in action. If one is, indeed, facing a problem of this magnitude, it is necessary to devote the utmost care to the scientific methodology involved in the project.

In sum, it is my opinion that weaknesses of the Condon Report are an understandable but regrettable consequence of a misapprehension concerning the nature and subtlety of the phenomenon. It is also my opinion that there is much in the Condon Report that could be used in support of the proposition that an analysis of the totality of UFO reports would show that a signal emerges from the noise and that the signal is not readily comprehensible in terms of phenomena now well known to science. If this is so, then the Report makes a case for the further scientific study of UFO reports. It appears that this opinion is, in fact, shared by certain members of the Colorado Project staff. For instance, Professor David R. Saunders, who left the project in unfortunate circumstances, has published a book (Saunders & Hawkins 1968) challenging the findings of the Condon Report. Gordon D. Thayer also has continued his interest in the phenomenon, as is evident from his report on the Lakenheath case for the journal Astronautics and Aeronautics (Thayer, 1971).

In conclusion, it is necessary to comment briefly on the review of the Condon Report by the National Academy of Sciences Panel (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, pp. vii-ix). This distinguished body reviewed the report and fully endorsed its scope, methodology, and findings. In Section IV, we have noted the discrepancies between facts and views advanced by the Colorado Project staff and those advanced by the Director. In comparing these with the NAS Panel Review, it is clear that some of their information is taken from the Director’s “Summary of the Study,” even where the content of this section is contradicted by material presented in Sections CR III and CR IV of the report. For instance, in discussing photographic cases, the Panel asserts that “35 photographic cases were investigated . . . none proved to be real objects with high strangeness.” This statement is entirely compatible with Condon’s discussion of photographic evidence in Section CR II of the report; but, as we have seen in Section III, Condon’s statements are not compatible with material presented by Hartmann, who carried out the photographic analysis: Hartmann discussed 14 cases, not 35; and, in his summary (CR 86), Hartmann states, “. . . after investigation, there remains a small residual of the order of 2% of all cases, that appears to represent well recorded but unidentified or unidentifiable objects that are air-borne-i.e. UFOs. . . .”

The Condon Report has also been studied by the UFO Subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, as part of their appraisal of the UFO problem (Kuettner et al., 1970). The Subcommittee states that “not all conclusions contained in the Report itself are fully reflected in Condon’s summary.” The subcommittee also points out that “Condon’s chapter, ‘Summary of the Study,’ contains more than its title indicates; it discloses many of his personal conclusions.”

Condon’s most important recommendation was perhaps that concerned with future activity. He states that “further extensive study of UFOs probably