Documents / Report
This is the final report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, conducted by the University of Colorado under Air Force contract F44620-67-C-0035, with Edward U. Condon as scientific director and Daniel S. Gillmor as editor. It was submitted to the National Academy of Sciences on 15 November 1968 for review. The report includes field studies, photographic and radar analyses, case studies, historical chapters and appendices such as the Robertson Panel report and the Twining letter.
Uiscussions of whether a marginal case shou'J he regarded for
statistical purposes a~ having been explained or not have proved to be
futile. Some investigators take the position that, where a plausible
interp:r.etation in terms of conunonplace events can be made, then the UFO
is regarded as having heen identified. Others take the opposite view
that an UFO cannot be regarded as having been given an ordinary iden-
tification unless there is ;.:omplcte and binding evidence amolJnUng to
certaint)' about the proposed identification.
For example, in ,Ianuar'y 1968 ncar Castle Hock, Colo., some 30
rerson~ reported UFOs, including spacecraft with flashing lights,
fantastic mancuvrability, and even with occuy:lI1ts presiuncd to be from
outer spacE. Two Jays later it was more modestly reported that two
high school boys had launched a polyethylene hot-air balloon.
Locally that was the end of the story. But there is a se4uel, A
man in Florida makes a practice oC collecting newspaper storics about
UFOs and sending them out in a mimeographed UFO news letter which he
mai Is to variou~ UFO jcurn"ls and local clubs. lie gave currency to
the Castle Rockceports but not to the explanation that followed. When
he was chided for not having done so, he declared that no one could he
abr...Jl..uteZy surf;' th!1t all the Castle I~ock reports arose from sightings
of the balloon. There l11i ~;ht also have been an lJl:O from outer space
,llnong the sightings. No one would dispute his logic, but one may with
propriety wonder why he negl('.:ted to tell his readers that at least
8,")le of the reports w(')'c actually misidentifications of:1 hot-air
bulloon.
As a practic;,l matter, Ive take the position that jf all I)]:() report.
can 1)(' plausihl\' t'.'i.plaillC'll in ol'uinary terms, then we accept ti)at
explanation even though nllt enough cviucnce Jnay be availal>Je to P,()Vc
i.t bcyonu all douht. This point lS ~o important. that pCl'h'lpS an analogy
l'i needl'J to make it clcar. S\ldaillC'll ill ordinary terms, tilell we :tccept tf-tat
explanation ('\'1;'11 thllu~h lIllt ('l1ough t'ViUOllCl' Inay 11(' :Ivai lablc to Il!')ve
it bl'yond all doubt. Tili:; point is :~\l important tll«t pCl'h'!]ls an analogy
l' needed tel make it clear. Sc-v('ral ccntul'ie5 a~o, the most gcncrally
acceptol1 tht'ory ()f human Ji sease W;lS that i t WII~ causeu by the pati cnt: IS
bdng P(,lSSt'":·~d or inhabitpd hy :1 lkvi 1 or evi I sJ1i rit. Ui fforcnt Report, from the classic collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 1497 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.