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

were nllegedly made by the landing legs of unidentified
velllclcs. A number of other cases of the landin~-gear imprint type
have been reported, including incidents at Prasque Isle State Park, Pa.,
31 .July 1966; South llill, Va., 21 April 1967; and Tucson,. Ariz., 9
October 1967. TI1ese three cases were examined and analyz~d by Project
Blue Book. lIall (1964) and others have listed other cases in which
ground impressions are claimed as evidence that unknown physical objects
had been present. Hall' 5 listing also includes a half doz~n "nest"
reports, and a L;;-ft. ri ng imprint of a general type earlier reported
in a casc' described by ~iancy and Hall (1961).
RCI10rt oS of ring imprints are not uncommon. rour cases I involving
ring imprints )!cncrally ahout 30 ft. in di.ameter a;ld 6 - 12 in. wide
I,Crt' reported i.1 August and September, 19b!, in three different Canadian
provinces. 111 Call1rose, Alberta SlX different rings were reported.
Photographs of the Camrose rings were reed vcd hy this proj ect for
E'yaluation.
Claims of the saucer nest type of evidence were made in a few of
the current cases invesUgated by the field teams (e. g. Case:; 22 ;
.25 I 3b ). In sante cases, the "nest" 5ee)l~ed imagi nary. In other
cases, the reality of an imprint, of a type which conceivably could
have b('c)1 made by a large saucer or by a bein,g from a saucer, was
C'v ident (as 111 L:ase 22 ). However, in all such cases, it was impos-
sible to establish AS factual the cJuims thnt the imprints actually
I\cr.:, mad£' by an ('xtraordir.~lry object or being.
If the' evidence displayed could have been the result of human or animal
Jctivity, or lightning or other natural event], the probability that
it \\'as so caused is mu~h gre~ter, in absence at- ind·;pl.:;!ndent evidence
to t·1e contrary, than the probabi li ty of its croat ion by an extra-
terrestrial vehi~lc or heicg: therefore, the burden of proof must
lie with the person claiming a strange origin.
129
were "llegedly made hy the landing legs of unidentified
vchi d e'S . !\ numher of other cas ('s of the 1 andi n£ - gear impri nt type
have' been reported, including incidents at Prdsque Isle State Park, Pa.,
31 ,July 1966; South flill, Va .• 21 April 1967; and Tucson, Ariz., 9
October 1967. These three cases were examined and analyzf.>d by Project
Blue Book. lIall (1964) anci others have listed other cases in which
ground impressions are claimed as evidence that unknown physical objects
had beC'11 present. Hall's listing also includes a half dozr:n "nest"
reports, aml a l.'-ft. ri ng impri nt of a general type earlier reported
in a casc' described by ~laney and lIall (1961).
H"'1'orts of ring imprints are not uncommon. four cases, involving
nil!: imprints ).!encl'ally about 30 ft. in di.ameter a:ld 6 - 12 in. wide
1,'C'rE' reported i.1 '\ll~ust and September, 19C1r, in three different Canadian
provincps, III (Hillrose, Alberta SlX different rings were reporteJ.
Photographs of the Camr'Jse rings were received hy this project for
('\'alu~tiOJ: .
Claims of the saucer nest type of evidence wen' made in a few of
the current cases investigated by the field teams (c. g. Case:; 22 ;
.25 • 3ti ). In sOllie cases, the "nest" see)l~ed imaginary. In other
casC's. til(' l'C'aJ ity of an imprint, of a type which conceivahly could
have been made by a large saucer or by a bein.~ from a saucer, was
evident las III L:asc 22). However, in all such cases, it was imp05-
~ible to estahlish as factual the c!~ims thnt the imprints actually
I,CT':' Illad£' by illl l'xtr!lorJir.ary object or bcjng.
If the' evidence displayed could have heen the result of human or animal
ac t i vi ty, or 1 igh tni ng or otlwr natural event;, the pr'abahi 1 i ty that
it lI'as so GlIIsed is much gre~ter, ill absence at ind'~p()ndent evidence
to t'1e contrary, than the probabi lity of its creation by an extra-
terrestrial vehi:lc or beicg: therefore, the burden of proof must
lie with the person claiming a strange origin.
129