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.
10. Conclusions OUr experience also leads us to condude :hat UFO photographic cases can best be selected for study and analyzed en the basis of the following criteria: (1) Subjective evaluation Do various photographic factors (focus, clarity, sharpness, contrast) and the testimony combine to make the c~se appear credible? Does it have potential in providing probative evidence for the reality of an unusual phenomeno~? (2) ~.nown phenomer\a Is any known phenomenon rationally acceptr.4ble as an explanation of the observation? Phenomena con- sidered must be based on a wide experience with meteorological, ast~onomical, optical, and photogrnphic effects. Can the report be a Case of mistaken intelpret.::.t',,)ll? (3) Fabrications Can the case be aCc0pteJ as having heen made in good faith? Are there any signs of tampering with the neg3tive? (Are the negB~ivc~ OT orjginal print~ pvailable?) Do the negatives represent a continuous sequence'? f,re focus. sharpne:;,~) and other characteristics quantitatively in accord ~I'i th the alleged siihtings? Arc light and shadows internally consistent on each photo? 120 10. Conchlsions OUr experience also leads llS to condude '::hat UFO photographic cases can best be selected for study and analyzed on the basis of the following criteria: (1) ~jective tlValuation Do various photographic factors (focus, clarity. sharpness, contrast) and the testimony combine to make thCl cr.se appear credible? Does it have potential in pro'fiding probative evidence for the reality of an unusual phenomeno~? (2) ~.nown phenomena Is any known phenomenon rationally accept,~ble as an explanation of the observation? Phenomena con- sidered mu~t be based on a wide experience with meteorological, ash'onomiea!, optical, and photu?rnphic effects. Can the report bE' a case of mistaken intelp:ret,., '':'Jl? (.')) Fabrications Can the case be acc(3pte'i as having heen made in good faith? Are there any signs of tampering with the neg3tive? (Are the negK.iv~~ o~ origInal prints pvailable?) Do the D/!gatives represent a continuolls sequence? /,re focus. sharpnt)s~) and other characteris tics quanti tati vely in accord I·"ith the alleged si~htings? Aro light and shadows interne,lly consistent on each photo? 120
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.