Recently, I read the Condon Report more carefully and discovered that the internal conclusions are at variance with Condon's preface! His putting his thoughts at the front had the effect of hiding the actual realities of the report. It clearly states that a significant percentage of flying disk cases remain unexplained.

At the inception of the Condon Report, Robert Low, the business administrator of the University of Colorado at the time, wrote to his superiors the following memo: Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally-objective study, but to the scientific community, would present a group of non-believers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.

At the outset of the project. Condon told a public meeting: "It is my inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this business. My attitude right now is that there is nothing to it. But I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year." That is an unsound position to take at the inception of a study. Upon saying that, he should have resigned as project director.

Many of the scientists who participated in the study disagreed with London, especially after they saw the data. Some resigned in protest. One of them, Dr. David Saunders.

published a book about it called UFOs? Yes! a few weeks before London announced his negative conclusion in November 1964.

The Condon Report ended the public interest of the United States government in the whole subject of unknown flying objects. Subsequent to the government's turning away from study in this area, very quietly the number of cases of people being taken by the visitors seems to have begun to rise.

Scientists nationwide have responded to the government's public position by refusing to take the matter seriously. Many people of the highest reputation have been sucked into this stance.

When the policy of denial was instituted, I doubt if anybody ever dreamed that the visitors would one day start marching into the homes of America in the middle of the night.

But it appears that this may be happening. If so, then the public has ended up on the Front line. And the visitors are not only entering our homes, they are entering our brains. And we do not know what they are doing to us.