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

a surface inversion. Jupiter's ... stellar magnitude \la~; -1.7
[and it] was low on the eastern horizon at 3pproximately 02°
azimuth. Betelgeuse.,. was a Iso low all the ea~;tcrn hori ZOIl
at approximately 81° az\muth.
TIle statement of one of the witnesses at Bismarc\ includes the
following comments:
. they appeared much brighter thun mosl: of the stars and
at times appeared to take on a rather dull bluish tint.
lhey appeared to mov~~ in the heavens, hut at a rather
s low rate and unlcs'~ a person braced 1n5 head ai.~a inst some
stationary object to f:'liminate head movement it would he
hard to te 11 that they were moving.
TIll;' one in th,~ we"t eventually disappeared he low the
horizon and the one in the northeast gradually seemed to
blend in with t.he rest of the stars until it was no longer
visible,
111e last statement lS typical of the description given hy
witnesses whu have apparently observed a hright stur rlsinu through an
inversion layer. 1t would seem to be circul1Istanti al cv idence of 1"he
,.affraction-brightening predicted by Hemal, for IlrlJpagat ir,)J1 along an
inversion layer (see Section VI Chapter 4). However, there is an al-
ternative explanation that simple diffractive bl~rring or smearing of
a star's image, by spreading the available light I)VOj' a larger area
of the eye's retina, ma~' cause a psychological illi.lsion of hrightening
of the object.
ThE' meteorological condltiol1s were generally favCJ)"hlc for anomalous
propllgati,oll at hath locat ions. '1110 refractl v j ty profi I e for HapirJ Ci ty
2(100 LST ~; All~l1:;t shows a 0.5"C tcmpCl'atUl'l' inversion over' a layer I()~) III.
thick, althouRh the resulting refractivity ~~rflJient is only -77 km- 1
(Fig. ~; ). '111C mwo LST profile (Fig. 6 ) sh()w~ a (1l'ol\Dunccd elevated
200
a surface inversion. Jupltcr's ... stellar magnitucle ~Ia:; -l.7
[and it] was low on the castern horizon at 3pproximately 02°
azimuth. Iletelgeu~e . was also low Oil the ea~;tern horizon
at approximately 81° azimuth.
'nle statement of one of the witnesses at Bismarc'.( includes the
following comments:
. they appenred much brighter than most of the stars and
at times appeared to take on a rather dull b lu ish tint.
'Ihey appeared to mov"l in the heavens, hut at a rather
5 low rate and tlnles'; a nerson braced 111 shead a ..:a inst some
stationary object to f' I iminate heu(i movement it woulJ be
harJ to te 11 that they we re moving.
Th(.' one in th,~ we"t eventually disappeared below the
horizon and the one in the northeast grad\lally seemed to
hlend in with t.he rest of the stars unti I it was no longer
visihle.
~le last statement is typic~l uf the description given hy
witnesses whu have apparently obs('l'veu a hright star rising through an
inversion layer. 1 t would seem to be circtllllstanti al ev idence ot +he
,.,liffractioll-brightening predicted by Raman for pr'JpagatioJl along an
inversion layer (see Section VI Chapter 4). However, there is an al-
ternative explanation that simple diffractive bl'JJ'iing or smcHring of
a star's image, by spreading the available lipht ave,' a larger arca
of the eye's ret.ina, may cause a psychological illusion of hrightening
of the object.
ThE' mete'orological condItions were generally fflVCJ!" hIe for aI10mal011~
propl1gati,oll at both locations. '11w refra(.~tivity profi1(1 for Hapiu City
2(100 LST :; AlI~llst shows n n.S"\: tcmpeJ'atUl'l' inversiol\ ove!' a layer I()~) III.
thick, altholiRh th0 rl's111tln~ r0fractivity RraJil'llt is only -77 km- 1
(Fig. :;). '111(' OROll LST I'tofile (Fig. G ) ~how~ :t P1'o!\()ul\ced ldevatcd
200