“Sightings”60+ pages
- p. 3 …Sighting Reliability
Groups for All Years and Each Year 25
Figure 10 Distribution of All Sightings…
- p. 4 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Continued)
Paiie
Figure 14 Distribution of Object Sightings by Months Among the Eight…
- p. 5 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS '
(Continued)
Page
Figure 38 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic…
- p. 7 …Evaluation of sighting reports, a crucial step in the preparation of the data
for statistical, treatment…
- p. 9 …Hynek1 s definition of the term
is "any aerial phenomenon or sighting that remains unexplained to…
- p. 10 …Although no evidence existed that unexplained reports
of sightings constituted a physical threat to the security…
- p. 11 records include condensations of all individual sighting reports, and the
IBM cards used in vaTious phases…
- p. 12 …Altogether, the data for this study consisted of approximately 4, 000
reports of sightings of unidentified…
- p. 13 …Besides these dis-
crete facts, an integrated written description of a sighting would be re-
quired…
- p. 14 …the maneuvers of the object or objects sighted.
Prior to the start of the analytical study…
- p. 15 …The num-
ber of reports of sightings in a single folder varied from 1 to over…
- p. 16 SINGLE OBSERVATION - A SIGHTING consisting of a single
report from (1) one OBSERVER with no knowledge…
- p. 17 …In brief review, ALL SIGHTINGS refer to all reports, UNIT SIGHTINGS
refer to actual sightings, and…
- p. 18 …The concept of a SIGHTING IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER was evolved to fill this desire. Using one column…
- p. 19 …About 800
reports of sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner. Most of
these reports…
- p. 20 …Categories for
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS, and
UNKNOWN were provided for the sightings that could not…
- p. 21 …During an identification conference, each sighting report was first
studied, from the original data, by one…
- p. 22 …in
the future about a sighting or a group of sightings, and to provide answers,
was…
- p. 23 …ALL SIGHTINGS (all reports)
UNIT SIGHTINGS, all observers
UNIT SIGHTINGS, single observer
UNIT SIGHTINGS, multiple observers…
- p. 24 …of concen-
tration of reports of OBJECT SIGHTINGS in an area. No other interpre-
tation of…
- p. 25 …sightings
2199 =100%
All sightings
3201 = 100%
Unit sightings
2554=100%
FIGURE I FREQUENCY OF SIGHTINGS…
- p. 26 Object sightings
2199=100%
All sightings
3201 = 100%
Unit sightings
2 5 5 4 = 1 0…
- p. 27 …S
I
FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY EVALU-
ATION FOR ALL YEARS WITH COMPARISONS…
- p. 28 …of object sightings
2(99 79
c
<u
a.
121 1501
Ilnsuf. —
—info.
All years 1947…
- p. 29 …of object sightings
70 55 8 3 127 129 183 638 407 166 125 10,6…
- p. 30 …3 0
FIGURE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY CERTAIN AND
DOUBTFUL EVALUATIONS FOR ALL YEARS…
- p. 31 * • < * ,
^ | j f c
en
Unknown
object sightings
J F M A M J J A S…
- p. 32 …27 = 3.6%
FIGURE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SIGHTING
RELIABILITY GROUPS WITH EVALUATION DISTRIBUTIONS…
- p. 33 …of object sightings
2199 79 43 186 169 121
Q. 40
30
20
10
0
1501…
- p. 34 …Poor
FIGURE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SIGHTINGS BY SIGHTING RELIABILITY GROUPS. SEGREGATED BY
-__-_z MILITARY AND…
- p. 35 …4 %
FIGURE II DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY REPORTED COLORS
OF OBJECTCS) WITH EVALUATION DISTRIBUTION FOR…
- p. 36 …info
FIGURE 12 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY NUMBER OF
OBJECTS SEEN PER SIGHTING WITH EVALUATION…
- p. 37 …FIGURE 13 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY DURATION OF SIGHTING WITH EVALUATION
DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH DURATION…
- p. 38 …of object sightings
70 55 83
9 0
£ 8 0
JZ
rou
0>
§ 6 0
v…
- p. 39 …90 100
FIGURE 15 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SHAPE OF OBJECTS) REPORTED WITH
EVALUATION DISTRIBUTION…
- p. 40 …40 50 60
Evaluation in Per Cent
FIGURE 16 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY REPORTED SPEED…
- p. 41 …of all sighting
3201
All yeors
117 205 164 306 160 2018
O
Location
not
stated…
- p. 42 …f
FIGURE 18 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY COLOR,1947-1952
A-7496
- p. 43 …OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY NUMBER OF
OBJECTS PER SIGHTING, 1947-1952
A-7497
- p. 44 …L_
FIGURE 20 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SPEED, 1947-1952
\ ' A-749§
- p. 45 …21 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY DURATION , 1 9 4 7 - 1 9…
- p. 46 …22 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SHAPE, 1 9 4 7 - 1 9…
- p. 47 …23 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY LIGHT BRIGHTNESS,
1947-1952
A-75 01
- p. 48 …MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS
ASTRONOMICAL VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS ASTRONOMICAL
A-7502
- p. 49 …i
i
m
FIGURE 25 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS
AIRCRAFT VERSUS…
- p. 50 …MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED
AS BALLOON VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS BALLOON
A-7S0…
- p. 51 …DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS INSUFFI-
CIENT INFORMATION…
- p. 52 …DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS
I OTHER VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS OTHER
A-7506
- p. 53 …MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS
UNKNOWN VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS UNKNOWN
A-7907
- p. 54 Number of
objects Color Speed Shape Duration
FIGURE 30 CHARACTERISTICS PROFILES OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY
TOTAL…
- p. 55 …IN EACH SUBDIVISION THE TOP FIGURE
INDICATES THE FREOUENCV OF ALL
SIGHTINGS, THE MIDDLE FIGURE UNIT…
- p. 56 oo
FIGURE 32 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY EVALUATION FOR THE TWELVE REGIONAL
AREAS OF THE…
- p. 57 …16.2 % Balance of Central East
Region
81 object sightings
Netf/wrk/
106 object sighting
61…
- p. 58 O
Dayton
144 object sighting!
" 7
Balance of Central
Midwest Region
164 object sightings
FIGURE 34…
- p. 59 …9 %
Balance of Central
Farwest Region
38 object sightings
San Francisco
93 object sightings
FIGURE 35…
- p. 60 CJ1
ro
o
San Antonio
36 object sightings
Balance of South
Midwest Region
FIGURE 36 COMPARISON…
- p. 61 Ol
98 object sightings
""^-Albuquerque
©
Unknown
2 5 . 6 %
Aircraft
20.8%
Balloon
20.0% Unknown…
- p. 62 II 5
Il/O
FIGURE 3 8 COMPARISON OF EVALUATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS IN
THE STRATEGIC…
- p. 63 …Upon completion of these calculations, the cards representing OBJECT
SIGHTINGS were sorted on the sign of…
- p. 65 …50
25
-90
All object sightings
Sun rise
Unknown object, sightings
Suniset
-60 -30 + 30 +60…
A "Certain" identification indicated a minimum amount of doubt regarding
the validity of the evaluation. By "rule-of-thumb" reasoning, the proba-
bility of the identification being correct was better than 95 per cent. A
"Doubtful" identification indicated that the choice was less positive, but
that there was a better than even chance of being correct.
It is emphasized again that, as was true for other phases of evalua-
tion, preliminary and final identification was entrusted only to scientists
and engineers who, in addition to their broad scientific background, had
received instruction, where necessary, in specialized subjects. The panel
of consultants provided background information for this instruction. Many
of the cases representing unusual features or maneuvers were submitted to
and discussed with various members of the panel of consultants prior to the
final identification.
Consistency in the application of the knowledge necessary for making
identifications was maintained by frequent collaboration among the person-
nel involved, and systematic spot checks of the work. In addition to the
general fund of knowledge required to identify satisfactorily a reported
unidentified aerial object, an attempt was made to correlate specific data
such as fllgfrt_plans of aircraft, records of ballQjan_r_el£_as_e_s, weather con-
ditions, and an astronomical almanac with the reported sighting.
The procedure followed in making final identifications deserves ex-
planation because of the importance assumed by the identification as a basis
for statistical treatment. As was mentioned, a conference of four qualified
persons, two from A TIC and two from the panel of consultants, decided
upon the final identification for each sighting report. This work was done
at ATIC, periodically, as reports became ready.
During an identification conference, each sighting report was first
studied, from the original data, by one person. If that person arrived at a
decision, it was checked against the preliminary identification; if the two
identifications were the same, the report was appropriately marked and
considered finished. If the two identifications did not agree, the report
was considered later by everyone participating in the conference until a
group decision could be made.
If an evaluator was unable to categorize the report as one of the
common objects or as a natural phenomenon, and his opinion was that the
sighting should be recorded as UNKNOWN, a group decision was also re-
quired on that report before it was considered finished. A group decision
was necessary on all reports finally recorded as UNKNOWN, regardless of
what the preliminary identification had been. In cases where a group
decision was not made within a reasonable time, the report was put aside
and later submitted to certain members of the panel of consultants for their
opinions. If, after this, disagreement continued to exist, the report of the
sighting was identified as UNKNOWN.
13