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

mist could colh'ct. '11H' 0hscrveJ diffractioll !Hlttern could h,1VC h~'cn
prcduced by either (11 interference effects ~~sociateJ with prora~ation
within and near the top of an inversion, or (2) a corona with a dark
aureole produced by a mist of droplets of water of 9bout 0.2 mm. chameter
spaced at rep:ular intervals as described l,y Minnaert (1954). In ei thp.r
event. the phenomenon must be qui te rare. '111e brigbtness of the image
may have been due in part to "Raman brighteni ng" ()f an image 'jeen
thl"ough an inversion layer.
Nor can exact nature of the radar propa~atjon effects be evaluated,
due to the lack of complete weather data. !Iuweve!', a substantial
inference that the radar returns were of an anomala1.ls propaRation natl)re
is derived from:
(1) the tendency fnl target~ to disapp~ar Rnd reappear;
(2) the tendenc)' for the ;arget to break up into sma 1101' targets;
(3) the apparent lack of co-rrelation between the tal'get s se\m
on the Gel and airborne radars;
(4) the radar invisibility of the tarHe:t ,,:llen visibility wn~:,
"exceptionally good."
Singly, each of the above eouiJ be interpreted in a different ligh~,
but taken together they are quite suggestive of an anom~lous pr0pagntion
cause.
In summar)', it appears that the 1110St probalJ Ie causes of tlli s UF,;
~~{'p(lrt are an optical eff.::ct on a bright light source that prOdl1C '.ld
the visunl sighting and '.musual radnr propagation effects tl1R~ pro-
duced the apparent UFO tracks on raJar.
I04-1l. (~oose ArB, Labrador, 15 December LlS2, l:ll~}-l~Hn Loca]
Mean Solar Time. Weather: c1'.:'ur a.nd vb;i,hi lity t:nlLcliteu \30 mi.·j.
The r:re,,-'s of an f-94B f1g~lt('r and a T-3~ jet trainer ~ilW H hriiZht red
and whit· object at 270" azimuth ,hUe flyin~ at 11\,000 ft. 'li'H.~ a1r-
craft attempted all intc~rcept at 375 knots i nJi catcd ai r speed, hut
188
mist could colh'ct. '111e 0hscrveJ diffraction llli' tern cOll)'1 h,wc h':cn
pl'cduced by either (1) interference effects p~sociated with propa~~ation
within and near the top of an inversion, or (2) a corona with a dark
aureole produced by a mist of droplets of water of ?bout 0.2 mm. c1iameter
spaced at reltular intervals as descl'ihed l)y Minnael't (1~):;4). JI1 ei tht'!r
event. the phenomenon must be qui te rare. '111e hrightness of the image
may have been duE' in part to "Raman hrightening" (,f an image ';een
through an inversion layer.
Nor can exact nature of the radar propa~atjon effects be evaluated,
due to the lack of complete weather data. II()weVel~, a substantial
inference that the radar returns were of an anoma10us propaRat lon na t1.lre
is derived from:
(1)
(2)
(3)
the tendency fnl target:< to di5app",ar nnd reappeal';
the tendenc), for the ':arget to break up into sma lle1'
the apparent lack of co-rrelatjon between the targets
on the Gel and airbo:t'nf; radars;
targC:ts;
seen
(4) the radar invisibility of the target ".1)en visibility W',!',
"exceptionally good."
Singly, each of the above cou'J be interpreted in a different light,
but taken together they are quite suggestiv~ of an anom~lous pr0pRRution
cause.
In summary, it appears that the most probllu le causes of thi s tJ~,l
~~!"pnrt are an optical eff.:,ct on a bright light :,ource that prouuc'.)d
the visual sighting and '.musual radnr propagation effects tha~ pro-
duced the apparent UFO tracks on radar.
104-11. (;oose AFll, Labradnr, 15 Dccembol' 1:1:;2, 1~1~}-10(1O Loc,d
MeaT! Solar Time. Weather: cl~(ll' and vi~ibl1ity \.~nl i;~1 tl'J \ 30 mi..·J.
The (re ..'s of an J:-941i fig: 1 t('l' and !l 1'-3,'\ jet trainer snw a bright red
and whit, object at 270" azimuth 1hUe flyln~ at [I),OPO ft. Tile a1r-
craft attempted an intercept ot 375 knots indlcated air speed, hut
188