Case number 11 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:

South Central
Winter 1966
Investigator: Roach
Abstract:

Four members of the crew of a DC-8 aircraft on a night flight from Lima, Peru to Mexico, D.F. reported sighting two bright lights which appeared to increase their angular separation with time. At the greatest angular separation the lights appeared to one of the observers to be connected by a body which had a suggestion of windows. Protuberances from the main "body" were reported. The object appeared to fly "in formation" with the aircraft for about two minutes and then was lost to view behind the wing of the aircraft.

It is suggested that the sighting may have been the result of the reentry of fragments of the Agena from Gemini II.

Background:

During a regular flight of a DC-8 commercial airliner from Lima to Mexico City four crew members reported an interesting sighting to the left of the aircraft. Here is the description given by the captain.

Two very bright lights, one of which was pulsating; from the two lights were two thin beams of light (like aircraft landing lights) which moved from a V initially to an inverted V finally. At one point the object seemed to emit a shower of sparks (similar to a firework). There appeared to be a solid shape between the two white lights, which was thicker in the middle and tapered outwards. There was also a strip of light between

[[428]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the white lights (not very bright and yellowish in color). Much like cabin lights of an aircraft.

The chronology and circumstances of events are given below:

Time: Winter 1966; 0803 GCT; 0238 local time.

Position of aircraft: Latitude 6S; Longitude 8142'W.

Moon: Almost full moon, high in the sky behind the aircraft.

Heading of aircraft: 318 magnetic, 324 geographic (36W of N).

Table 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time (relative) Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 min. First sighting. Two lights, 70 left, about 10 above the horizon. Estimated separation of the lights about 1/2
4 min. Lights now about 90 to the left, brighter than the full moon, separation of the lights estimated at about 9 or 10. A suggestion of "windows" between the lights. Shower of sparks from more northerly light.

5 min. "Pacing" the aircraft
6 min. "Pacing" the aircraft
7 min. Object lost to view behind the left wing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[429]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggested explanation of the sighting:

The apparent "pacing" of the aircraft by the object for an estimated two minutes is a puzzling feature of the sighting. Also the captain's sketch is suggestive of some kind of a craft. These add up to the intriguing possibility of an intelligently guided craft which, in the words of the aircraft's captain, "is a craft with speed and maneuverability unknown to us."

In a discussion with the captain, who has had some 26 yr. of flying experience, I asked his opinion of the following possibilities:

Table 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation Evaluation by Captain -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aircraft Definitely no
Meteor No
Reentry of satellite Possible
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Agena from Gemini II (see Plate 20) had been predicted to reenter at 0730 GCT at latitude 21 N, and longitude 134 E (NE of the Philippine I.). This is some 33 min. earlier than the sighting and about 1/3 of the of the earth's circumference away. NORAD has made a calculation of a reentry of a fragment or fragments from the Agena which would have a much smaller drag coefficient than the Agena proper. The final computer predictions to represent an extended reentry of a low drag fragment in the vicinity of the aircraft are shown in Table 3. It is noteworthy that during the last two minutes from 08h 04m 30s to 08h 06m 21s the object is dropping almost vertically from 26 km. to 10 km. The aircraft was presumably flying at about the latter height.

The closest approach of the Agena and the aircraft is about 250 statute mi. The rapid deceleration of the reentering fragment

[[430]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- at the end of its journey is consistent with the impression of the crew that the object was pacing the aircraft since it could have appeared close to 90 on the left side of the aircraft for some minutes during its final descent into the atmosphere. The time of the sighting was given by the report of the crew as 0803 GCT. It is not known whether this time was near the early or the late part of the event. Also there is some uncertainty as to the exact geographical location of the aircraft during the sighting. With these uncertainties it seems that the proposed explanation of the sighting as due to the reentry of the Agena from Gemini II is reasonable (but not proven) so far as the relative paths of the aircraft and the predicted reentry are concerned.

Table 3 NORAD Computer Predictions for Extended Reentry of Low Drag Fragment of Agena

Date Hr. Mm. Sec. S. Lat. E. Long. Ht.(km.)
30 Dec. 1966 08 00 30 4.498 268.218 81.
01 30 6 .390 271 .476 74
03 30 9 .264 276 .572 43
04 30 9 .558 277 .106 26
05 30 9 .577 277 .142 15
06 21 9 .577 277 .142 10

[[431]]


Case number 12 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 13 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 14 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:

South Central
Winter 1967
Investigators: Low, Powers, Wadsworth, Crow
Abstract:

Six UFO reports in the area of two South Central cities were investigated in the winter of 1967. Of the six, three were promptly identified, two as astronomical objects and one as a chemical-release rocket shot. The other three remain unidentified as follows:

The city police chief and several officers reported sighting an extended object of spherical shape one morning, winter, 1967. It was of whitish or metallic color and showed no surface features as it drifted slowly near the outskirts of the city. The officers watched it for about 1.3 hours before it drifted out of sight.

Several town policemen reported a red-and-green light moving irregularly in the western sky in the morning in winter, 1967. The planet Jupiter was low in the western sky also, but according to the witnesses the object displayed movement which would rule out identification as an astronomical object. They also stated that a bright "star" was visible near the object.

Three teenage boys in the city reported to the police that they had just seen a large elongated UFO at the edge of town. Their description closely matched that of a recently publicized set of pictures that have since come under suspicion as a probable hoax. Credibility of these witnesses was considered marginal. Background and investigation:

First Sighting

One morning in The winter of 1967 about .5 hours before dawn, the city police received a call from the town police reporting that an unidentified object was headed southeast toward the city. A Police lieutenant drove to a location approximately four miles north of the city, and within a few minutes saw what he described as a huge silvery object moving slowly in his direction. The object was low on the horizon at an estimated elevation of 1,000 ft.

[[438]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several minutes after the object first became visible, it turned in a southwesterly direction, heading toward a nearby town. At this point, additional officers were called as witnesses. They met at a point just west of the city, about four miles from the town. The object was visible to all until it drifted out of sight just before dawn.

There is no reason to doubt the credibility of the sighting; however, the question of what was seen remains unresolved. One bit of corroborating evidence was brought to light during the investigation. A periodic glow or reflection from the object was described by the Joplin lieutenant. He stated that the glow had a regular five-second period. One-half mile from the witnesses' first location was the local airport. The half-rotation period of the airport's two-way beacon is five seconds, and thus consistent with the periodic glow seen coming from the object. If the object was both low and nearby, it might have been illuminated by the beacon.

The possibility of conventional explanation as a balloon was ruled out when a weather check indicated that lower winds were from south to southwest.

Second Sighting.

At approximately 5:00 a.m., the following morning, a sergeant of the police department observed an unidentified object in the western sky. He described the object as a bright light one-fourth the diameter of the full moon, showing no distinct outline, and colored red on the left and greenish-blue on the right. The object first attracted attention because of its apparent motion, which was irregular, involving stopping and changing direction. After a period of observation during which time several other officers were present, the object suddenly dropped as though it were going to "crash", but stopped a short distance above the horizon. By comparing the remembered elevation of the object to a penci1 held vertically at arms length, it was estimated that the object when first observed, was 12 degrees above the horizon, and then dropped 9 or 10 degrees before stopping.

The sergeant was questioned about Jupiter, which was low in the west at the time. He said that a bright "star" was also visible, but that the motion of the object was too pronounced for it to have been a star or planet. He also emphasized that all of the witnesses observed the motion simultaneously, and that the object moved relative to

[[439]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the fixed background of stars. The object was still visible when the witnesses left the scene.

On the basis of witness testimony, it seems unlikely that the object spotted was Jupiter; however, evidence was insufficient to establish this.

Third Sighting. A sheriff and a police chief reported seeing a bright bluish cloud-like display for over an hour just before dawn on a winter morning, 1967. As daylight approached the object disappeared.

This "object" was later identified as an active chemical rocket launched from Eglin AFB, Florida, at 5:40 a.m. CST. It rose to an altitude of approximately 100 mi, where it released for scientific purposes a cloud of barium particles that glowed brilliantly bluish through chemical reaction with the surrounding atmosphere. It has been determined that this display would have been clearly visible from the area where the sighting took place.

Fourth Sighting.

Three teenage boys reported having seen a large UFO at the edge of town about 11:30 p.m., one evening, winter 1967. They described structural details, fins, and lights. After first seeing the object directly in front of their car, they followed it as it drifted over a wooded area into which there was a narrow access road. There they got out of their car, but became frightened when the object appeared to move in their direction, whereupon they returned to their car and left to report the incident. The boys' description and a sketch drawn by one of them closely matched recently publicized photographs, one of which had appeared in a local newspaper a few days before the sighting. Nevertheless, during interviews, the boys showed no evidence of falsification and seemed to have been genuinely frightened by the experience. No corroborating evidence was found to support this report.

Fifth Sighting

At 12:30 a.m. , one morning, winter 1967, a report came in to the city police station from the state patrol. The report stated

[[440]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- that a UFO was at that moment under observation, that it was being photographed, and that it had caused an observer's car to stall. Low immediately investigated this report and identified the object as Jupiter. The stalled car was still at the scene with apparently a low battery. The observer who had photographed the object said it had moved markedly before coming to rest at its present position. Thus, the possibility exists that initially he was watching something other than Jupiter; but there was no doubt of the identity of the object that he photographed.

Sixth Sighting

At approximately 1:30 a.m., one morning, winter 1967, the city police dispatcher reported an object low in the East. This was promptly identified as Arcturus, which was scintillating markedly.

The following are pertinent excerpts from the meteorological report for the area on the day of the first sighting as prepared by Loren W. Crow:

The semi-stationary weak cold front lay in a north-northeast south-southwest orientation approximately forty miles northwest of [the city]. Behind this front cloudiness was generally overcast at 10,000 feet or more above the ground. To the east of the front, the sky was generally clear with some patches of scattered clouds. Visibility was 15 miles or greater, and the flow of the air was from the south-southwest at the surface in the vicinity of [the city] ... (at higher elevations).

CLOUDS: It is of some interest to note that the clear condition being observed at [three local stations] at 5:00 a.m. changed to reports of at least two cloud layers by 7:00 a.m. at all three stations. Part of this would have been due to increasing amounts of light for the trained observers to be able to identify cloudiness which could not have been seen during the darker hours of the night ...

Although the type of clouds being reported at 10,000 feet over [the city] were not identified, the type of cloud in this height range was identified as alto-cumulus over [nearby cities]. It is the Author's opinion that this type of

[[441]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cloud would have been altocumulus castellatus, which tends to have rounded edges. The initial formation of such clouds would constitute small individual cloud cells. Each may have shown for a matter of a few minutes then may have been replaced by another cloud cell nearby which may have been similar in shape. This could have indicated movement from the position of the first cloud parcel (which now would have disappeared) to the position of the newer cloud. At the same time, the individual clouds would be moving with the wind, which was from a westerly direction at those elevations.

It is fairly certain that cloudiness began to appear in this area sometime between 4:00 and 6:00 a.m. There may have been a few isolated cloud parcels visible with the limited moonlight available at 5:00 a.m....

Conclusion

Of the six sightings investigated, three objects were identified. In only one case of an unidentified object was the evidence strong for both its reality and its strangeness. That was the first, which involved a slowly drifting sphere, metallic in color. We have little basis for speculation about what the object was, since the sighting occurred in pre-dawn darkness and no surface details or structural features were seen. In the other two unknown cases the evidence is less substantial, one case having low credibility and other marginal strangeness.


Case number 15 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 16 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:

South Mountain Winter 1967 Investigators: Van Arsdale, Hynek Abstract:

Daylight visual sightings of "silvery specks" overhead were reported, but pilots of aircraft sent to investigate saw nothing. Two radars concurrently detected several intermittent stationary targets in the reported area, and then a single target that moved slowly several minutes. Then it disappeared on one radar, and on the other described an approximately circular course at high speed. The visual sighting, and a later one, are impossible to evaluate. The radar targets are attributed to propagation anomalies, a balloon, and malfunction of one radar.

Background:

Reports of reliably witnessed visual and radar sightings in the vicinity of an Air Force base reached the project, leading to the decision to send an investigator there. It was arranged that Dr. Hynek, who was to be at the base on other business, should participate in the investigation.

Investigation:

The investigators examined the radar plots and talked with the base UFO officer, the Public Information Officer, and the radar operators who had reported the unidentified targets. From these inquiries, the following account developed.

At 10:25 a.m. a young man telephoned the base UFO officer to report that he was seeing "silvery specks" passing overhead. During about 30 min., he had seen two or three groups of 30 to 40 such objects moving southwest. He was at a point (Point "1," Fig.l) in the mountains NE of the base.

[[445]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 1 (Times/Locations of Sightings) Click on "thumbnail" image to see its full-size version.

[[446]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The UFO officer finished his conversation with the witness at 10:50. He then had two aircraft sent to the reported location; but they reported nothing unusual

He also asked range surveillance radar to seek the objects. (Being inexperienced in such investigations, he told the operators where to look, instead of simply asking them whether they had any unidentified targets). Only two surveillance radars were operating, one at Mission Control on the base and the other 35 mi. south.

About 10:55 both radars plotted four objects about five miles south of the visual sighting, and a little later three other objects ("2" and "3" Fig. 1 ). All of these objects were intermittent, appearing sometimes on one sweep of the radar screen and not on the next, so that the radar tracking equipment could not "lock on" them; but they appeared to be stationary.

Then at 11:08 both radars plotted a slow-moving object at 25,000 ft. altitude, and tracked it ten minutes while it moved three or four miles eastward ("4" and "5" Fig. 1). At this point, at 11:18 a.m., it disappeared from the south radar screen, while the radar at Mission Control showed it moving southward at Mach 1.2. It continued approximately on a circular course centered on Mission Control radar, while both radars scanned clockwise. At 11:21.5 both radars showed two stationary objects ("6" Fig. 1) that also flickered intermittently.

Mission Control radar continued to follow the fast-moving target on its circular course until it abruptly climbed to 80,000 ft. ("7" Fig. 1), and followed it on around to the north until it appeared to go out of range at 100,000 ft. altitude, at 11:31.

During the tracking of the circular course, the operator stated that he thought the radar was not functioning properly. The UFO officer accordingly was advised that he should not consider the plotted tracks "firm and accurate." FAA radar did not confirm the circular track, and range-data radars were not operating. the following day, the radar supervisor reported that evaluation of the Mission Control radar record indicated that the instrument had plotted a noise track. Also, there exist unexplained discrepancies

[[447]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of 5 to 15 mi. between the ranges of the various unidentified targets displayed on photographs of the radar plotting boards, compared with the written report issued by Mission Control the next day. Positions indicated on Fig. 1 are taken from the plots.

An electronics technician reported that at 11:20, while he was at location "8" (Fig. 1), he saw a saucer-shaped object moving rapidly away from him; it disappeared behind a nearby peak. His line of sight to the peak was approximately toward the point on the circular track traced at 11:20 by Mission Control radar.

Comment:

With the limited information available, the two visual sighting reports are impossible to evaluate. The "silvery specks" could have been plant seeds of the type that float like parachutes, but such a suggestion is speculative.

The radar observations offer a more substantial basis for analysis, since they involved two trained operators and instrument records (See also Section III Chapter 5). However, the UFO officer remarked that the men on duty during the sightings were second-line operators having little experience with "track" (surveillance) radar. As noted earlier, they were told to look for unidentified objects at a specified location and had perhaps in consequence found them there ("2" on Fig. 1). It appears probable that these intermittent, stationary targets were mirage-like glimpses of peaks or other high points that were just below the radar line of sight, and were brought into view sporadically by fluctuations in the atmospheric path. There is the strong implication that the operators noticed these "objects" at location 2 because they were directed to look for something there, and that they could have found similar targets at other points on the mountain landscape. In fact, they did just that, at locations "3" and "6" (Fig. 1). These observations appear to be similar

[[448]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to some reported in other cases (e.g., Case 35) in which operators of highly specialized radar equipment have failed to notice extraneous objects on their screens because they were intent on the targets that they had been assigned to track. They become aware of such commonplace objects only when a "UFO flap" has diverted them from routine procedure and encouraged them to look for anomalies. It should be noted that such a habit of ignoring irrelevant information in the perceptual field unless attention is directed to it is common in other instrument observations, and indeed in ordinary experience. It has accounted for many visual UFO reports.

The slow-moving radar object ("4" and "5" on Fig. 1) was entirely compatible with a weather or research balloon drifting with the prevailing westerly winds.

The evidence indicates that the circular track plotted on Mission Control radar, but not on the south screen, was an instrumental anomaly. The operator at Mission Control judged that the instrument was malfunctioning, and the subsequent evaluation by the civilian radar supervisory staff attributed the circular trace to a "noise track." Why the slowly-drifting object should have disappeared from both radars at nearly the same time is not clear. However, if it is assumed that the circular track represented a real object, then it is much more difficult to explain why the south screen never picked it up, even though it passed within seven miles of that station when the radar was working as attested by its plotting the targets at location "6."

It is important to note that none of the radar targets exhibited motions agreeing even approximately with those reported in the two visual sightings. The "silvery specks" were moving southwest. The saucer-like object of the second sighting was moving "away from" the observer and disappeared behind the peak, which was ENE of him, while the radar "object" was moving south. Also, inspection of the contours of the region indicates that the radar "object" plotted at 25,000 ft. altitude would have been obscured by mountain ridges from the observer at location "6"

[[449]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- throughout at least 25 of azimuth to the north of the peak.

This case is not fully clarified in all details; but the evidence indicates decisively that it is typical of many instances in which an initial sighting of dubious quality stimulates unusual attention and induces an expectant emotional state in which commonplace phenomena assume apparent significance.


Case number 17 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 18 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 19 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 20 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 21 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as presented in Condon Report:

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 22 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 23 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 24 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 25 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 26 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 27 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 28 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 29 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as presented in Condon Report:

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 30 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 31 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 32 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 33 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 34 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 35 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 36 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 37 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 38 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 39 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 40 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 41 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 42 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Case number 43 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 44 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A


Case number 45 Number of witnesses: N/A
Radar: N/A
Military witnesses: N/A
Air pursuit: N/A
Police witnesses: N/A
Police pursuit: N/A
Other: N/A

Case as presented in Condon Report:

Case as it is presented in the Condon report:


Full Index
Indoctrination Tactics
The Real God Maybe
Free Speech
Censorship
Lessons From Histoy
What Religious people really Worship
Democracy
Theory for everything
107 Wonders of the Ancient World