Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (the Condon Report, complete, three volumes)

Chapter 2
Analysis of UFO
Photographic Evidence
William K. Hartmann
1. Introduction
The first reported photograph of a UFO after the Arnold sighting
of 24 June 1947, was made on 4 July 1947 in Seattle, Washington. (Ruppelt,
1956. p.32) The object was identified as " weather balloon. This first
photograph is typical of the photographic evidence that has accrued
since: It accompanied a "wave" of reports and was inconclusive in
establishing the existence of any extrbordinary aircraft.
;'lthough photographic evidence, in contrast to verbal testimony,
might be considered "hard" dat'i, experience has indicated that one
(:anno:: assume that a photograph of an airborne disk is more credible
than 3 verbal leport. Even if it were true that cameras never lie.
photographers sometimes do. A photograph may be more interesting than
a verbal account; indeed, if we knew that "flying saucers" existed.
the best documented photographs would be extremely valuable in estab-
lishing their properties. But in the absence of proof of the existence
of such aircraft, we ar~ conce~ned at this stage with the credIbility
of reports.
The most convincing case 0- photographic evidence would involve
not only multiple photographs . multiple photographers, unrelated
and unknown til each other, a co, ,u1erable distance apart (preferably
tens of miles), whose photographs .i~monstiably show the sa.me UFO.
No such case is known to the Color,HI' proj ect.
The Colorado project studies of JFO ph0tographs are based on this
approach. The question that is centn 1 to the study is: cloe8 the I'epo"('~
have any pr-obative val.ue in e8tabU8h'i~1g the existence of flying 8aueer8?
A question definitely secondary in impcrtance (and 'onducive to unproduc-
tive arguments) is: What is the final nxp1anation of each pho'~ograph?
10 fl
1. Intro(luct ion
---"
Chapter 2
Analysis of UFO
Photographic Evidence
William K. Hartmann
The first reported photograph of a UFO after the Arnold sighting
of 24 June 1947. was made on 4 July 1947 in Seattle, Washington. (Ruppelt,
1956, p.32) The object was identified as .. weather balloon. This first
photograph is typical of the photographic evidence that has accrued
since: It accompanieJ a "wave" of reports and was inconclusive in
establishing the existence of any extr~ordi"ary aircraft.
although photographic evidence, in contrast to verbal testimony,
might be considered "hard" data, experience has indicated that one
canno:: assume that a photograph of an airborne disk is more credible
than 3 verbal leport. Even if it were true that cameras never lie,
photographers sometimes do. A photograph may be more interesting than
a verbal account; indeed, if we knew that "flying saucers" existed,
the best documented photographs wOLdd be extremely valuable in estab-
lishing their properties. But in the absence of proof of the existence
of such aircraft, we ar~ concerned at this stage with the credIbility
of reports.
The mos1 convincing case 0- photographic evidence would involve
not only multiple photographs ,multiple photographers, unrelated
and unknown t,) each other, a co: ,,,Ierable distance apart (preferably
tens of mi les), whose photographs .1 !monst. ab ly show t.he same UFO.
No such case is known to the Color~u' project.
The Colorado Froject studies of JPO phutographs arc based on this
approach. The question that is centr, I t.o the study is: doe8 the l'epori
have any probative value in eatabUsh·i.,1gthe exisien<Je of flying oauC'el's?
A question definitely gecondary in imptrtance (and :onducive to unproduc-
tive arguments) is: What is the final Ilxplanation of euch phO'i:ograph?
lOR