proj~ct case files arc also not presented, because the percentages uhtained
primarily reflcft the :-;ollr~'c~; from which thl' sightcrs' nmnes were Ura\·ifl.
'I1H' primary findillg from tht.' 5ight:cl's' question is that 117"l't'nl, theli, that most sightings have little chance of
coming to tht., attel1tion of an agency, wh(~th~r official, semi-official,
or pri\'iltl',I1\e failurl' to l'eport UFO sightin~"s appears to be mOl'e prcb'
valent, 87';" than th,~ fai 1111'l' to report c1'ill1e, SIt, as indicated in thc
rnnh reports 1191,7a, 1!1(,7b).
B:-' l~olltr:l
fo;' repo!'till~, l'Osl'0n~H's from sight';l!':; ideatifiL'd in the national survey were
not statist;~:111~' mcanill~ful he~(llls(' the answer's an' from so few respondents,
Het!snm; giveJl l'y nOllsi!~htl~rs, whidl n,'l'l'csent a response to II hypotlll'tical
~ituatioll, arl' intl'l'l'sting p\'imarily in that thl'y may be reglll'dl'L1 as
i't'fll~,'t\ng till' viell's of 11I0St of thl' i\l11cl'h'an publ it.'. As I:an he Sllcn in
Table' II, the dominant reason of nOllsi~hbll'S is "I would \~:,nt to know
Id\a t it I"as. " Thl~ otll('!' al tl'l'lIat i Vl' frequent ly endorsed i oS "beclluse
~ t ran~l' ol> j l'l' ts shoulll Ill' \·()P01,tCll. "
In thl' qUl'S t i "l:!~a i 1'1' fo\' Pl·O.it.~ct S j ~h t l'l'S was an identical 4ucstlon.
I'rojed sightcl's' l't'aSl)tl~ appeal' in TlIble I ~ Till'S (' si!1hters, who
proj~ct case files arc al~o not presented, because the rercentBgc~ uhtaincd
prililarily n'flcI't thl' sour,T'; from which t.hl' :>ightcrs' munes were uriJ ..... n.
'nlightcrs' qllestion is that 1l7"" of sighters
indicate'J thnt they 1'l'porteJ the sighting to no olle other than fand ly or
hicnds It would Sl'!;"»], then, that most sighting~ have Ii tt Ie chance of
l'oming to tlH' attent ion of (\1\ agency, wlwthl'l' official, semi-official,
or private. 'l1\e faiIlll'l' to l'eport UFO sightin~,s appears to be m01'e pre-
\'aIcllt, ~7':" than th,~ rai l'l1'e to report ('l'illlO, :;1~" as indicated in the
I'nni;: )'t'I'Ol''t~ ll9h7a, l!l('-b),
Ii)' l~olltr:1q, onl), If"~:, of the nOllsightcr!' inJicntt,d that they would
lIoti f>' no on(' sav!' rami 1:; or friends. In addi tion, over half of the
Jlllllsight~r5, ShOo, indicated they would not ify the police. There i~
dearly, a ctlnsiucrahll' di:-:crepancy het'ween results for sighters and for
lIonsight~l's,
,\t lellst t\,'O l'ossibll' ('xplanatio1s filliY accollllt for the .liscn'panel'
bl'tl~L'l'n lI'hat pl'ople sa)' they l>imlld do (responses of nonsightcrs) and
"hat tht';, in fact du, lrl'spollses of sif.!htol's) given the actual circum-
st;IIlCC of a sighting:
(11 '11Il' 1lt1l1llll'1' of si):htcrs in the stully is small and thus may not
j l'l' ts shoul d \ll' ,·epol'ted."
In thl' qUl'sti"!\!':tII'C 1'01' Ill'O,kl't si~htl'I's wa!\ all identical 4ucst!OI\,
I'rojcd sightcrs' I'l'a",lll~ appcnr in Tahle I.:!, Tlll'se si!1htl1fS, 1,1ll)