this conclusion, Condon takes the position (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 19) that "If an UFO report can be plausibly explained in ordinary terms, then we accept that explanation, even though not enough evidence may be available to prove it beyond all doubt."

In assessing the basis for Condon's conclusion, we may refer to the staff summaries that comprise Section CR III; the staff summaries are based, in turn, on the case studies. In the next section, we shall consider the evidence as categorized in the staff summaries, referring to specific cases as seems appropriate. In the remainder of this section, we shall categorize cases according to the conclusions drawn by the project staff.

In addition to three observations by astronauts (which will be discussed separately in Section IV), 59 cases are listed in Section CR IV. One of these (Case 14) involves six separate events. Another (Case 38) is a discussion of "over 800 sightings of UFOs." The appraisals were as follows:

1. No event; one case (19).
2. Inconsistent data, possible hoaxes, or otherwise of no probative value; 17 cases (4, 7, 14.4, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 39, 42, 44, 48, 52, 53, 56, 58).
3. Identified (anything from "conclusively" to "inconclusively"); 25 cases (3, 9, 11, 14.3, 14.6, 15, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55).
4. Not identified; 14 cases (1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14.2, 17, 21, 32, 34, 47, 59).
5. Delusions; 2 cases (16, 38).
6. Not appraised due to evasion by Air Force; 1 case (30).⁴
7. Possible UFOs; 2 cases (14.1, 57).
8. Probable UFOs; 2 cases (2, 46).

We now consider evidence by category, drawing from both Section CR III (staff summaries) and Section CR IV (case studies) of the report.

Narrative Evidence

Craig states (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, pp. 72, 73):

While the current cases investigated did not yield impressive residual evidence, even in the narrative content, to support an hypothesis that an alien vehicle was physically present, narratives of past events, such as the 1966 incident at Beverly, Mass. (Case 6), would fit no other explanation if the testimony of witnesses is taken at face value.