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

\.ith a mirage; (2) tilerc- was apparently a radar return obtained f-rom
the object which is incompatible with the hypothesis that it was an
astronomical object, the most likely mirage-producer.
nle pilot stated that the Northeast DC-G flying at 20,000 ft.
"painted" the UFO at 15° elevation and a range of 20 mi. This would
place the UFO at about 48,500 ft., th~ pilot~ estimate of 60,000 ft.
apparently being in error. Presumably th~n, the elevation angle as
viewed from the Capital Viscount was abo~t 19°. It is very unlikely
that any temperature inversion sufficient to produce a mirage would be
tilted at such an angle. For a near-hDrizontal layer to have produced
such an image (plus the radar return) by partial reflection of a ground-
based object seems equally unlikely. The largest optical partial
reflection that such a layer might produce at an angle of 19° wuuld he
about 10- 14 as bright as the object reflected (see Section VI, Chaptor 4).
This is a decrease of 35 magnitudes. Such a dim object would be or-
dinarily invisible to the unaided eye.
In summary, these two cases must be considered as unknowns.
1065-B. Charleston, S. C., 16 January 1967, 1810 1,5'1'. The
observational data in this cas~ are insufficient to determine a pro-
bable cause for the ~ i ghting. A civilian "walked out of his hou~e and
saw" two round object!i. He estimated that they were about 30° above
the horizon. They appeared teo be "silver and blue, with a red ring."
l11ese obj ects were alternately side by side and one above the other,
and a beam of light issued "from the tail end." 'Ole ohserver does not
state h~w he knew which was f:he "tail end," or even at what Cl~imut.!l
he saw the'"objects. They "vanished in place," still at 30° elevation.
After the Charleston ArB was notified of the sIghting, some
unideTltified returns \~ere picked up on an MPS-l.t search rudar. An
investigating officer later determined that these returns were spurious.
111C t:ll5e fi le states :
192
Idth a mirage; (2) tlterc- was apparently a radar return obtained from
the object which is incompatible with the hypothesis that it was an
astronomical object. the most likely mjragc-produccr.
n,e pilot stated that the Northeast DC-G flying at 20.000 ft.
"painted" the UFO at 15° elevation and a ranE,e of 20 mi. This would
place the UFO at about 48,500 ft., th~ pilot~ estimate of 60.000 ft.
apparently being in errur. Presumably th'm, the elevation angle as
viewed from the Capital Viscount was abo~t 19°. It is very unlikely
that any temperature inversion sufficient to produce a mirage would be
tilted at such an angle. For a near- hori zontal 1ayer to have produced
such an imRge (plus the radar return) by partial reflection of a ground-
based object seems equally unlikely. The largest optical partial
reflection that such a layer might produce at an angle of 19° would he
at-out 10- 14 as bright as the object reflected (see Section VI, Chapt,~r 4),
This is a decrease of 35 magnitudes. Such a dim object would bo or-
dinarily invisible to the unaided eye.
In summary, these two cases must be considered as unknowns.
1065-B. Charleston, S. C., 16 January 1967. 1810 LST. The
observational data in this ca5~ are insufficient to determine a pro-
bable cause for the ~ i ghting. A civilian "walked out of his houw he knew which was f;he "tai 1 end," or even at what ,,;.imut!1
he saw tIH""objects. 'They "vanished in place," still at ~OO elevation.
After the Charleston AFll was notified of the sighting. some
uniuelltifieu returns "ere picked up on an MrS-l.t search radar. An
investigating officer later deter~ined that th~5e returns were spuriou5.
1110 case file states:
192