The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study. From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."
Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980
"There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases - perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies - for which there is no explanation... We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to." (Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)
Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned Anthropologist.
"Probably the most striking discrepancy in the Condon 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."
Richard Dolan PHD
Granted 'unexplained' does not mean alien (or anything else) but there does seem to be some serious questions raised about the way the USAF collated their UFO statistics - quibbling about the figures might not matter much anyways as Bluebook Chief Colonel Robert Friend once said that during his tenure there were 'classified intelligence channels for reporting UFO's that completely bypassed Bluebook' and government docs also exist which state that 'UFO reports that were a threat to national security weren't even part of the Bluebook system' (link) - here's Stanton discussing how Dr Hynek was quite upset about it.
Dr Hynek - not happy
Another important aspect of the cover-up is the October 20, 1969, statement by USAF Brigadier General Carroll Bolender, while reviewing Project Blue Book, with which he had no previous connection: “Moreover reports of UFOs which could effect national security are made in accordance with JANAP 146 and Air Force Manual 55-11 and are not part of the Blue Book System.” Two paragraphs later he noted “However, as already stated, reports of UFOs which could affect national security would continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedures designed for this purpose.” I spoke with Bolender and it was clear that he understood the distinction between civilian reports and ones which could effect national security. Clearly the sightings of most interest are the ones that could effect national security. Blue Book wasn’t even on the distribution list for sightings reported under JANAP 146 or AF Manual 55-11. I well remember the frustration expressed by Blue Book Scientific consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek when I told him about the Bolender memo at a West Coast MUFON Symposium in 1979. He felt very used.
But if they weren’t part of Project Blue Book, where were the important cases documented? Why haven’t we been told about them? Why does the USAF always respond to queries about UFOs by referring to Blue Book and the fact that it was announced as being closed in December, 1969?
1967: THE OVERLOOKED UFO WAVE AND THE COLORADO PROJECT
BLUE BOOK LIES