Project Blue Book Special Report (second copy)

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