I
I physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object, this
I was not assumed to be prima facie evidence that "flying saucers" did not
exist.
I In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a
1· factual level failed completely, the report was eliminated from further con
sideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis. About 800
I
reports of sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner. Most of
these reports were rejected because they were extremely nebulous; the
rest were rejected because they contained highly conflicting statements.
The second step in evaluation, the rating of the observer and his
I report, logically followed the first step, the reduction of the data to usable
form. Ratings were assigned on the basis of the following factors of in
I formation, considered in relation to one another:
I ( 1) The experience of the observer, deduced from his
occupation, age, and training;
( 2) The consistency among the separate portions of the
I description of the sighting;
I (3) The general quality and completeness of the report;
(4) Consideration of the observer's fact-reporting ability
I and attitude, as disclosed by his manner of describing
the sighting.
I In cases in which insufficient information was available to make a judgment
of the observer or report, none was made, but the report was accepted for
I the statistical study.
The third step in the process of evaluation, the attempted identifica
I tion of the object or objects sighted, was done twice, first by the individual
I who made the transcription of the data (the preliminary identification), and
later (the final identification} by a conference of four persons, two repre
sentatives from ATIC and two from the panel of consultants. Although
representatives of A TIC participated in making the final identifications, it
I must be emphasized that any previous identification of a sighting made by
A TIC was not introduced or referred to in any way.
I In the coding system, the choices provided for final identifications
were based on A TIC' s previous experience in analysis of the data. They
I had found that the majority of sightings could be classified as misinterpre
tations of common objects or natural phenomena. Accordingly, categories
I for objects most frequently present in the air were provided. Balloons,
aircraft, astronomical bodies ( such as meteors), birds, and clouds or dust
I
were recognized as major categories. The less frequent, but common
objects, such as kites, fireworks, flares, rockets, contrails, and
11
I