Documents / Report
This is the final report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, conducted by the University of Colorado under Air Force contract F44620-67-C-0035, with Edward U. Condon as scientific director and Daniel S. Gillmor as editor. It was submitted to the National Academy of Sciences on 15 November 1968 for review. The report includes field studies, photographic and radar analyses, case studies, historical chapters and appendices such as the Robertson Panel report and the Twining letter.
UFOs and the experic~ce of investigators in uncovering photographs
suggest that we have considerably less than half the photographs
considered by their owners to show UFOs. Of the photographs that
may have a bearing on the existence of extraordinary aircraft We
probably have a l~rger fraction, since they are more interesting to
their owners. The distinction 15 that an UFO photo may show just a
point source of light, or an amorphous blob, while an alleged "flying
saucer" photo must exhibit some detail. But even in these cases,
the fraction may well be less than half.
Reasons for the existence of hidden data include: (1) apathy
on the rsrt of the photographer, (2) ignorance of what to cia ~ith
the photographs, (3) fear of ridicule, (4) fear of becoming involved
with authorities in si tuat ions involving security or mil itary re-
strictions (e.g. Ft. Belvoir case), (5) fe~r of restrictions in
JANAP-146.
It is also possible that d~ta, generated by various technical
recording equipment, suetl as all-sky auroral camera~, or the Prairie
Network are another "hidden" source (Section VI, Chapter 9).
Finally, there is another class of "l,:;..dden data": sightings
supposed to have occurred on various military bases but allegedly
suppressed by military or intelligence authorities. We have heard
many allegations of such cases. Usually they were not detailed enough
to be fruitful, and i~ only one case was it possible for us, even with
the cooperation of the Air Force, to lOI:ate any alleged photographs of
UFOs. 5uch allegations of suppression may typically al'ise as a result of
incidents like that described in Case S\ In this instance a bright
UFO was re'~ord{'d by several tracking cameras at Vandenberg AFB. The
UFO was descrihed as "streuking up past" a rocket during a launch. Pro-
ject investigators recovered the films in question without difficulty.
Study of them conclusively iJentifj ed the UFO as lhe planet Venus.
Meanwhile, however, the story had reached the rumor stage, and it is
likely that belief that an UFO had paced a Tocket was widEspread
as a result.
111
UFOs and the experic~ce of investigators in uncovering photographs
suggest that we have considerably less than half the photographs
considered by their owner!; to show UFOs. Of the photographs that
may have a bearing on the existence of extraordinary airoY'aft we
probably have a l~rger fraction, since they are more inter~sting to
their owners. The distinction 15 that an UFO photo may show just a
point source of light, or an amorphous blob, while an a llegcd "flying
saucer" photo must exhibit some detail. But even in these cases,
the fraction may well be less than half.
Reasons for the existence of hidden data include: (1) arnthy
on the prt of the photographer, (2) ignorance of what to uo ,;ith
the photographs, (3) fear of ridicule, (4) fear of becoming involved
with authorities in situations involving security or military re-
strictions (e.g. Ft. Belvoir case), (5) £e1r of restrictions in
JANAP-146.
It is also possible that dRta, generated by VHJious technical
recording equipment, such as all-sky auroral camera~J or the Prairie
Network are another "hidden" source (Section III, Chapter 9).
Finally, there is another class of ",.:Ldden data": sightings
supposed to have occurred on various military bases but allegedly
suppressed by military or intelligence authorities. We have heard
many allegations of such cases. Usually they were not detailed enough
to be fruitful, and i~ only one case was it possible for us, even with
the cooperation of the Air ~orcc, to locate any all~ged photogTaphs of
UFOs. Such allegations of suppression may typically arise as a result of
incidents like that described in Case SI In this instance a bright
UFO was re~ordrd by several tracking cameras at Vandenberg ArB. The
UFO was descrihed as "strellking up past" a rocket during 11 launch. Pro-
ject investiKators recovered the films in question without difficulty.
Study of them conclUSIvely iJentij'jed the UFO as lhe planet Venus.
Meanwhile, however, the story had reached the rumor stage, and it is
likely that belief that an UFO had pac~d a rocket was widespread
as a result.
111 Report, from the classic collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 1497 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.