aaro historical record report volume 1 2024

20
somewhat unique view of UFO investigatory efforts, primarily focusing on whether or not UFO
phenomena merited formal scientific research in terms of academic or USG-sponsored research
and in secondary schools. The panel said their remit did not include the study of UFO
phenomena as a potential risk to U.S. national security interests.44 Among other duties, it closely
examined 59 specific case studies.45
Results: The panel’s report stated that: “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.” The panel cautioned against support for scientific papers on this topic and
recommended that teachers should not give credit to students for reading UFO literature and
materials.46
• The panel also investigated and studied a small number of cases of alleged physical
evidence of UFO visitations—from imprints on the ground and residue allegedly left
behind from UFO landings (such as a white powder and ethereal strands dubbed
“angel hair”)—to metallic debris. The panel found ordinary explanations for each of
these cases. Some of these cases originated in Brazil, Norway, and Washington,
D.C.47
• The panel investigated a claim made by radio broadcaster Frank Edwards in a 1966
book that a piece of a UFO was recovered near Washington, D.C. in the summer of
1952 during the spike in UFO sightings over the U.S. Capitol in July and August. He
claimed that a USN jet fired on a two-foot diameter glowing disc and dislodged a
one-pound fragment that was recovered by a ground team. Project BLUE BOOK was
not aware of this claim. The USAF and USN found no incident report of weapons
engagement with a UFO that summer, no USN aircraft were present, and the retired
officer who was the original source of the claim had retired before the summer of
1952, when the event allegedly occurred.48
• Edwards also made the claim in 1966 that the USG had loaned the Canadian
government fragments of a UFO it had allegedly recovered. It is not clear if this
claim was linked to the alleged Washington, D.C. incident. He also claimed that Dr.
Vannevar Bush, a prominent inventor, defense industry scientist, and founder of the
National Science Foundation, led the effort to study the fragment. The Condon panel
determined that these claims most likely were false.49
National Academy of Sciences Assessment of the Condon Report (Late 1968)
Background: After the Condon Report was criticized by some scientists—including
Project BLUE BOOK’s Dr. Hynek—a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was
tasked in late 1968 to examine the rigor, methodology, and conclusions of the Condon Report.
The panel did not conduct its own investigation into the validity of UFO reports.50