Project Condign

From the UAP Encyclopedia, the open encyclopedia of UFO and UAP history · 🗓️ Event

Contents 7
Project Condign
Illustration of official papers and files
Illustration: official papers and files. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.
Date2 December 1993
TopicsSecrecy & cover-up (topic)
PeopleDavid Clarke
TestimonyShellenberger testimony, p. 118
Year1993 in UFO history
Timeline1993 on the UAP Timeline
Sources11

Project Condign was a secret study of UFO reports carried out for the UK Ministry of Defence's Defence Intelligence Staff in the late 1990s, with its final report completed in 2000. Its report, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region, concluded that UFOs were no threat and attributed many unexplained sightings to poorly understood atmospheric "plasma" phenomena. Its existence was revealed in 2006.[1][2]

Origins

Illustration of lights in formation over the landscape
Illustration: lights in formation over the landscape. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

Internal discussion of a UFO study began in 1993, when a memo from DI55, the intelligence branch concerned, raised the risk of political embarrassment if such a project became known, and the request was shelved. A memo of 19 June 1995 from the same branch revived the idea after a rise in UFO reports. The work was given to a trusted defence contractor; sources differ on whether it began in 1996 or 1997, and the final report was dated December 2000.[1][4]

The study

Illustration of an open book about flying saucers
Illustration: an open book about flying saucers. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

The study was based on about 10,000 sighting reports collected by DI55, a section of the Defence Intelligence Staff's scientific and technical intelligence directorate. The resulting report ran to about 400 pages. Its author has never been publicly identified.[1]

Findings

Illustration of a triangle of lights overhead
Illustration: a triangle of lights overhead. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.
  • The report said the existence of the phenomena was "indisputable", but that there was no evidence that they were hostile or under any kind of intelligent control.[1][2]
  • Most sightings were explained as misidentified aircraft, balloons and other ordinary objects.[1]
  • Many of the remaining reports were attributed to "buoyant plasma formations", electrically charged atmospheric phenomena compared with ball lightning, which the report suggested might also explain reports of black triangles.[1]
  • It suggested that such plasma fields might affect people near them and cause altered perceptions, which might explain some close encounters, and recommended research into military uses of plasma.[1]

Release and reaction

Illustration of official papers and files
Illustration: official papers and files. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

The report was released on 15 May 2006 in response to a Freedom of Information request made in September 2005 by Sheffield Hallam University lecturer David Clarke and researcher Gary Anthony. Clarke said it showed that the intelligence staff's investigation had been larger than previously admitted, though it shed no new light on UFOs. Because it was secret, the report was never peer-reviewed, and commentators have doubted that its plasma hypothesis would survive independent scrutiny.[1][2][3]

People and topics

Illustration of an object over the sea
Illustration: an object over the sea. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

On the Timeline

Illustration of a disc-shaped craft in the night sky
Illustration: a disc-shaped craft in the night sky. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

See every 1993 event on the UAP Timeline →

References

This page was last edited on 29 October 2026. Articles are written in our own words from the sources listed under References; disputed claims are attributed to the people who made them.

Discuss the article: missing sources, mistakes, or what should be added.

No discussion yet.

BrowseFeedArticlesTimelineOfficial filesMapTonight’s SkyStatsFavorites