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

.1. 'lhl' number of idclltified or fl'uliJulcnt cases is irrelevant
to t1w cxistL'llI':l.' \)1' 1l01\-l'xi stenec 01 extraordinary objects or "fly-
ing S' one of these rcprest:nt s an lInU511B l or extrtlordi nary phCnOmellCi".
We find no c(Hlclu~nv ...\ evidence of unidclltifip.d Hin~n.lft or "flyll1!o;
5uuc~rs . II Th(> phClto~rltphic Jatllt has been poorly presenteu in the pa~lt,
Ullrl the flequen..:r of hypothetical "flyillg suucer,t;" appears much
silla ] l~r than has beet) popularly a~sumcJ;lt may be zero. The JIl e~cnt
data un.' compatible with, but do hOt. establish either the 11ypothcg-tS
l.!S
.1. 'll\l' Ilumber or idcl1tified or f.l':.IlIJulcnt casc~ I.S irrelevant
to til\' cxistL'IlCl' L)l" 1l011-l'x.i~tenc\' 01 extraordipary objects or "fly-
ing SHlICCI·S."
5. A very small fr~ction of potentially identifiable and in-
tel'osting rljotographic cases remain unidentified.
Some conclusions relating to these re:.irJual photographic cases
are:
1. Non~ of them conclusively establishes the existenc~ of
"flyjng saucers," 01' any extraordinary aircraft, or hitherto un-
known phenomenon. For any of th~se cases, no matter how $trange or
intriguing, it is ",ways possible to "explain" the observations,
eithe:r by hypothesizing some extn;or.'dinary chcumstance or by alleging
a hoax. That is to say, n,)ne of the residual photographic ca:;es in-
vDlt~gatea hera is compelling cnough to be conclusive on its own,
2. Some of the cases ar~ sufficiently explicit that ~he choice
is limited to the cxi~tence of an extraordinary aircraft or to a
hoax
~. The residual group of uniJentifieJs is not Lnconsis~ent
with the hypothesis that unknown Elnd extraordinary a:rcraft have
p~netrated the airspace of the United Status, but none yields
~ufb;ient ",vidence to establish this hypothesis.
In sLll1U1lary, about lO'\; \)f the photographic cases roan initillly
be selected as "first priori ey" C!l;es, i ,e. intere~titlg and detei \ed
enough to investigate. After investigation. there rcnlains a small
residllRI, of the order of ~, 0~ nIl cases, that appears to tepres.nt
well "IKoru(!'d but unident.ifled or unldentlfiable obje'~ts Llwt arc
airborne - i.e. Uf'Os. Yet there lS in:lUffidvllt evidenc.c to ~::.sert
thllt all}' one of these rCpl'CSults Oil unusual or extt(wrdinBry phcnomcnc,n.
We find no C(mc!USIV<-' evidence of 1I1liOelitifip.d (lin:r(.Jft or "flyll1j.;
souc~rs ." Tlw phatof,;rllphic dlltll. hall bel;!l1 poorly pl'cSt!ntcu in the PS!lt.
UI1.t the flequen..;r of hypothetical "flyillg 5aucer.~11 i1ppeurs much
slIIa J l~r than has beel) popularly HhsumcJ;\ t may be ~ero. The III c!!cnt
data lire computible with, bllt do hot establhh either the 'lypothc!1-is
125