<pre>FLYING
SAUCERS:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE
AIR FORCE
PROJECT BLUE BOOK
SPECIAL REPORT No. 14
THIRD EDITION PREPARED BY
JULY, 1966 DR. LEON DAVIDSON
A
In the analysis and investigation of the radar and visual
sightings described, there are some yardsticks which have been
established from experience and trends to measure and attempt to
determine the source of UFO's. Some of these are general in nature
and are Subject to change as new scientific and factual information*
is received. It should be remembered that any object -viewed from a
great distance appears to be round. Nearly •all the sightings reported
are described as round and would tend to indicate that most of the
objects are at a greater' distance from the observer than is generally
estimated,
•Another misconception centers about photographs of unidentified
flying objects. At best the majority of photographs have proven -
non-conclusive as evidence • to this program mainly due to type cameras
used. Also, it might be mentioned that because still photographs can
be so easily faked, either by using a mock-up or model against a
legitimate background-, or by retouching the negative, they are worth-
less as evidence. Innumerable objects, from ashtrays to wash basins,
have been photographed while sailing through the air. Many such
photos have been published ’Without revealing the true identity of the
.objects.
More attention is given to moving pictures of unidentified fly-
ing objects since they are more difficult to retouch. However, only
a very few movie-type films have been received by the Air Force and
they reveal only pinpoints of light moving across the sky. The Air .
Force has been unable to identify the source of these lights because
the images are too small to analyze properiy. Since ownership of
these films remains with the persons taking them, the Air Force is
now in a position to give them out.
The difficulty of evaluating reports of all types Is based
largely upon the lack of basic data surrounding the sightings. The
drop in sightings during 1953 Is largely due to the increased accuracy
and the completeness of reports being received. To be of value, a
report should include such basic data as size, shape, composition,
speed, altitude, direction, and the maneuver pattern of the objects.
Without such information, it Is almost impossible to establish the
identity of the object sighted. In addition, a recent study has shown
a direct correlation between the number of sightings reported and the
publicity given to M saucers M by the nation's press.
The Air Force took a further step in early 1953 fiy procuring
Videon cameras for the purpose of photographing this "phenomena. ’These
cameras were distributed to various military installations. This type
camera has two lenses, one of which takes an ordinary photograph, and
the other has a diffraction grating which separates light into Its
component parts. This aids in determining the composition of the ob-
ject photographed. A small number of photographs have been received
from this camera; however, only light spots of no detail have been
indicated in the photos to date. As more photographs are taken by
these observers, it Is believed that a great deal of the mystery will
be lifted from the program.
The Air Force would like to state that no evidence has been
•eceived which would tend to Indicate that the United States is being
oserved by machines from outer space or a foreign government. No • j
object or particle of an unknown substance has been received and
-3- MORE J
.1
no photographs of detail have been produced. The photographs on
hand are, at best, only large and small blobs of light which, In
most cases, are explainable.
It may be concluded from the above and from past experience that
no new significant trends have developed out of these cases, There
was an increase in public interest which occurred simultaneously with
the publication of various books and articles on the subject; however,
this trend has been noted several times previously.
In order to overcome the lack of basic data, and to standardize
all reports, a detailed questionnaire is now submitted to each person
reporting an unidentified ae.rial object. It is felt that the infor-
mation thus obtained will lower still more the number of unexplained
sightings.
For observers who wish to report unidentified aerial objects,
the Air Force would v/elcome .the information. Attached to this report
is a brief basic summary form. It would be appreciated if observers
would send the completed form to the nearest Air Force Base,
If and when new developments turn up in this program, the Air
Force will keep the public informed.
- 4 -
. , j Proloot Bluo Book Special Report Ho. 14 (»•• Part D)
Tho naterlal in tho Projooi "ju of ^ cu ^ Mr poyoo oontraotors
vae firat prepared i“ for*nre«entatloa to a panel of aoiantlsts early
and the ProJeot Blna ^k otafft for^praion Unidentified Plying Objects",
in 1953. f&2$Cfor, the background of this Panel.}
in 1953. (8J* -in on 293-294T for the background of this Panel.)
Doubleday. first edition, asp. pp. 29 > 29 H, ror on a CBS TV Special Report,
S& S2 CIA o luSS-ed 4 Rupp.lt) Which had pai& for
the Pan ell ■ aotiTities.
llthousH tk. m» Book B.port HO.^J w. ■ ^S" £"!
page D5), the Panel's report (page B2) was kept seor.| ^ the CIA to
Keyhoo in early 1958. u !? t ^_ a 0 n bI)* the Panel report was given to bo on
get the aaterial, and I 8 ®* ? n tfon wrote to each Panel neaber, and to others,
LX,T?*th& r».rt. <«»«« *» **•
replies which I received are reproduced on pages B3 to ®o.
Koto tb.t th. ufe puipon* of thl. P S .X
oerned. apparently was to prepare for a tea ? a i 8 po ints in tho letters touching
sate atss: - cll * l8ht
The letter reproduced below shows that the noraal channel for soientifio
t\£lr?lY wanted an J^parti ^scientific Investigation of the -flying ««««"
in 1953. This is further shown by the Government's failure to adopt or
Ush the recomandations given by the Panel in Paragraph 3 of their report(p. >
§
IF
i letter froa a aoientiat, not on the
Panel, who wrote to Panal Deabere ha
knaw, taking about tha Report, In 1958.
May 20, 1958
Mr. Laon Davidaon
64 Proapact Street
White Plaint, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Davidaon:
I received one verbal and one written anawer to
my query. The written anawer waa quite definite. The releate
had been written in "governmonteae" purpoeely, but it waa not
expected that there would be any raleaae. There waa to be no
further atatement from the group. A aecond man told me more
definitely that he waa aetonlehed at the wording of the document
that he had, preaumably eigned. He agreed with me about ita
indefiniteneaa and thought that It would do harm. But then ha
pointed out that no matter what you aaid the flying aaucer people
would get you somehow or other.
If I hear of anything more of Intereat I will keep
you informed. I find Ruppelt'a lotter intereating and certainly
it throwa light on aome of the actlvltiea of that agency. In my
opinion it further veriflea RuppelA incompetence for the Job that
he waa given. I mean thin not aa a critlciam, becauae one can-
not alwaya control the aaeignment and doubtleaa ha did the beat
he could. But I've never aeon a project woraa handled than the
early etagea of the flying aaucer program. I had one of thoae
"briefing aoaalonr and particularly recall one Incident.
In my emphaaia that theeo wore natural phenomena,
aay mirage* for example, one of the men aaid "auppoae that we
granted for a moment, that you are correct. Doean't
it occur to you that we might be able to uae thie information in
reverae?"
"You mean aa a counter measure?" I aaked,
"Exactly! "
^ "You mean you would like to uae thie phenomenon,
■ ay, to produce an image of Chrlat over the kremlin?"
"Yea that'a an excellent example," he aaid.
"Absolute nonaenae!" I replied. 1 then went on to
atate emphatically that I waa not going to be muaaled by any con-
alderationa of aecurity or aecrecy in thia development. Aa I recall,
General Sanford waa preaent at theae meetinga.
Aa a result! they agieed to open up the Blue Book fllea
r 3 m«. In «*et Ruooelt was raqusetsd to bring them to me
ao that I could atudy them. Well, not only did Ruppelt never
come, but he further Immediately moved in to classify the filea and
I waa not permitted, aa Keyhoe and othera have indicated, to get
this information. On one occasion, however, I waa told to come
over and see all of the filea and they would throw them open.
I went over to the Pentagon whore the scientist in
charge of thia bureau immediately pulled out great drawers of these
things and aaid "now here you can see for yourself exactly what ia
in them. " Ho aaid "I know you have aecurity clearance. "
I aaked him if the filea were claaalfied and that if
anything that I happen to see In thoae filea and wanted to quote it
would be similarly claaalfied. He aaid yea that I waa not permitted
to quote. I said "no thank you! " and thus avoided what might con-
ceivably have been a trap to muasle me.
Sincerely youra.
Cl
Part C* The Current (1966) Air Force Releaso on Project Blue Book
Pages C-l through C-8 comprise the conqplete text of the document
issued by the Air Force in February 1966 as it a current "press
release" for the public. The only deletions (made necessary by
limitations of space) are a "Suggested Reading List" of books on
aatronony, atmospheric phenomena, etc., whioh constituted page 6,
and a Fireball Report Form whioh formed page 10. If deBired,
these missing pageB may be obtained from the publisher (see back
cover for address) at a nominal charge to cover reproduction and
handling expenses.
The cover letter from the Air Force which accompanied this docu-
ment is reproduced on page C-4, occupying what was a large blank
space in the original document. Pages 4 and 5 of the original
document, whioh were each half-blank, have been combined on
page C-5. Pages 6 and 10 have been omitted, as stated above.
II i u I
BOOK
1
FEBRUARY
1966
C. 2
PROJECT BLUE BOOK
The United States Air Force has the responsibility under the Department of Defense for the
investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). The name of this program, which has been in
Operation since 1948, is Project Blue Book. It has been identified In the past as Project Sign and
Project Grudge.
Air Force interest in unidentified flying objects is related directly to the Air Force responsi-
bility for the air defense of the United States. Procedures for conducting this program are estab-
lished by Air Force Regulation 200-2.
The objectives of Project Blue Book are two-fold: first, to determine whether UFOs pose a
threat to the security of the United States; and, second, to determine whether UFOs exhibit any
unique scientific information or advanced technology which could contribute ^scientific or technical
research. In the course of accomplishing these objectives, Project Blue Book strives to identify
and explain all UFO sightings reported to the Air Force.
HOW THE PROGRAM IS CONDUCTED
The program is conducted in three phases. The first phase includes receipt of UFO reports
and initial investigation of the reports. The Air Force base nearest the location of a reported sight-
ing is charged with the responsibility of investigating the sighting and forwarding the information to
the Project Blue Book Office at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
If the initial investigation does not reveal a positive identification or explanation, a second
phase of more intensive analysis is conducted by the Project Blue Book Office. Each case is objec-
tively and scientifically analyzed, and, if necessary, all of the scientific facilities available to the
Air Force can be used to assist in arriving at an identification or explanation. All personnel asso-
ciated with the investigation, analysis, and evaluation efforts of the project view each report with
a scientific approach and an open mind.
The third phase of the program is dissemination of information concerning UFO sightings,
evaluations, and statistics. This is accomplished by the Secretary of the Air Force, Office of In-
;i formation.
The Air Force defines an unidentified flying object as any aerial object which the observer is
unable to identify.
Reports of unfamiliar objects in the sky are submitted to the Air Force from
These sources include military and civilian pilots, weather observers, amateur astronomers,
business and professional men and women, and housewives, etc.
Frequently such objects as missiles, balloons, birds, kites, searchlights, aircraft navigation
and anticollision beacons, Jet engine exhaust, condensation trails, astronomical bodies and meteor-
ological phenomena are mistakenly reported as unidentified flying objects.
The Air Force groups its evaluations of UFO reports under three general headings: (1) identified,
(2) insufficient data, and (3) unidentified.
C3
Identified reports are those for which sufficient specific information has been accumulated and
evaluated to permit a positive identification or explanation of the object.
Reports categorized as Insufficient Data are those for which one or more elements of informa-
tion essential for evaluation are missing. Some examples are the omission of the duration of the
sighting, date, time, location, position in the sky, weather conditions, and the manner of appearance
or disappearance. If an element is missing and there is an indication that the sighting may be of a
security, scientific, technical, or public interest value, the Project Blue Book Office conducts an
additional investigation and every attempt is made to obtain the Information necessary for identifi-
cation. However, in some instances, essential information cannot be obtained, and no further action
can be taken.
The third and by far the smallest group of evaluations is categorized as Unidentified. A sight-
ing is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to
suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of
the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena.
There are various types of UFO sightings. Most common are reports of astronomical sightings,
which include bright stars, planets, comets, fireballs, meteors, auroral streamers, and other celes-
tial bodies. When observed through haze, light fog, moving clouds, or other obscurations or unusual
conditions, the planets, including Venus, Jupiter, and Mars have been reported as unidentified flying
objects. Stellar mirages are also a source of reports.
Satellites are another major source of UFO reports. An increase in satellites reported as UFOs
has come about because of two factors. The first is the increase of interest on the part of the public;
the second is the increasing number of satellites in the skies. Positive knowledge of the location of all
satellites at all times enables rapid identification of satellite sightings. Keeping track of man-made
objects in orbit about the earth is the responsibility of the North American Air Defense Command
Space Detection and Tracking System. This sophisticated electronic system gathers complex space
traffic data instantly from tracking stations all over the world.
Other space surveillance activities include the use of ballistic tracking and large telescopic cam-
eras. ECHO schedules are prepared by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center at Greenbelt, Maryland,
and schedules of the South/North equator crossings are prepared by the Smithsonian Institution at
Cambridge, Massachusetts. From the data produced by these agencies, satellites mistakenly reported
as UFOs can be quickly identified. Some of these are visible to the naked eye.
Aircraft account for another major source of UFO reports, particularly during adverse weather
conditions. When observed at high altitudes and at some distance, aircraft can have appearances rang-
ing from disc to rocket shapes due to the reflection of the sun on their bright surfaces. Vapor or con-
densation trails from jet aircraft will sometimes appear to glow fiery red or orange when reflecting
sunlight. Afterburners from Jet aircraft are often reported as UFOs since they can be seen from great
distances when the aircraft cannot be seen.
The Project Blue Book Office has direct contact with all .elements of the Air Force and the Fed-
eral Aviation Agency civil air control centers. All aerial refueling operations and special training
flights can be checked immediately. Air traffic of commercial airlines and flights of military aircraft
are checked with the nearest control center, enabling an immediate evaluation of aircraft mistakenly
reported as UFOs. However, since many local flights are not carried, these flights are probable causes
of some reports.
TYPES OF UFO IDENTIFICATIONS AND EVALUATIONS
2
4 -
Balloons continue to be reported as UFOs. Several thousand balloons are released each day from
military and civilian airports, weather stations, and research activities. There are several types of
balloons - weather balloons, rawineondes, radiosondes, and the large research balloons which have
diameters up to 300 feet. At night, balloons carry running lights which cause an unusual appearance
when observed. Reflection of the sun on balloons at dawn and sunset sometimes produce strange ef-
fects. This usually occurs when the balloon, because of its altitudes, is exposed to the sun. Large bal-
loons can move at speeds of over 100 miles per hour when moving in high altitude Jet windstreams.
These balloons sometimes appear to be flattened on top. At other times, they appear to be saucer-
shaped and to have lights mounted inside the bag itself due to the sun's rays reflecting through the
material of the balloon. The Balloon Control Center at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, main-
tains a plot on all Military Upper Air Research Balloons.
Another category of UFO evaluations labeled Other includes missiles, reflections, mirages,
searchlights, birds, kites, spurious radar indications, hoaxes, fireworks, and flares.
Aircraft, satellites, balloons, and the like should NOT be reported since they do not fall within
the definition of an unidentified flying object.
Dear Mr. Davidson:
Blue Book 8pecial Report #14 vas a one time report, and we
have no plans to replace or revise it*
I a a inclosing the current report on Project Blue Book for
your information. You will note froa this report that the conclusions
are essentially the ease as those made in Special Report #l4.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE 8CCHKTAF1Y
JUN -3 1966
Sincerely,
1 Atch
Project Blue Book
Mr# Leon Davidson
64 Prospect flti
White Plains, New York
• / - /lsion
Office of Information
3
CONCLUSIONS
To date the firm conclusions of Project Blue Book are: (1) no unidentified flying object reported
investigated and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national
security- (2! there has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings
categorized as unidentified represent technological developments or princi^
present day scientific knowledge; and (3) there has been no evidence indicating that sightings categor-
ized as unidentified are extraterrestrial vehicles.
The Air Force will continue to investigate all reports of unusual aerial phenomena o ver the United
States. The services of qualified scientists and technicians will continue to be used to investigate and
analyze these reports, and periodic reports on the subject will be made.
The Air Force does not deny the possibility that some form of life may exist on other planets in
the universe. However, to date, the Air Force has neither received nor discovered any evidence which
proves the> existence and intra-space mobility of extraterrestrial life. The Air Force continues to ex-
pend an open invitation to anyone who feels that he possesses any evidence of extraterrestrial vehicles
operating within the earth's near space envelope to submit his evidence for analysis. Initial contact
for this purpose is through the following address:
PROJECT BLUE BOOK INFORMATION OFFICE
SAFOI
WASHINGTON, D C 20330
Anyone observing what he considers to be an unidentified flying object should report it to the
nearest Air Force Base. Persons submitting a UFO report to the Air Force are free to discuss any
aspect of the report with anyone. The Air Force does not seek to limit discussion on such reports and
does not withhold or censor any information pertaining to this unclassified program.
The following items are for internal use only and are not available for
distribution to the public. These concern internal management and procedures
for forwarding UFO reports to the appropriate agency:
1. Air Force Regulation 200-2
2. JANAP 140
The Air Force has no films, photographs, maps, charts, or graphs of un-
identified flying objects. Photographs that have been submitted for evaluation
in conjunction with UFO reports have been determined to be a misinterpreta-
tion of natural or conventional objects. These objects have a positive identifi-
cation.
The Air Force no longer possesses, and thus does not have tor distribu-
tion, outdated reports on Project Sign, Project Grudge,
Report No. 14, and outdated Project Blue Book press releues.Non-mllltary
UFO publications should be requested from the publisher, not the Air
4, 5
C6
TOTAL UFO (OBJECT) SIGHTINGS
(Complied 17 Jan 66)
YEAR
TOTAL
SIGHTINGS
UNIDENTIFIED
SOURCE
1947
122
12
Case Files
1948
156
7
Case Files
1949
186
22
Blue Book, page 108
1950
210
27
Case Flies
1951
169
22
Case Files
1952
1,501
303
Blue Book, page 108
1953
509
42
Case Flies
1954
487
48
Case Flies
1955
545
24
Case Flies
1956
670
14
Case Flies
1957
1,006
14
Case Files
1958
827
10
Case Files
1959
390
12
Case Flies
1960
557
14
Case Flies
1961
591
13
Case Files
1962
474
15
Case Files
1963
399
14
Case Flies
1964
562
19
Case Files
1985
886
16
Case Flies
10,147
646
7
STATISTICAL DATA FOR YEARS 1053-1064
TOTAL CASES BY CATEGORY
Astronomical
Aircraft
Balloon
Insufficient Data
Other
Satellite
Unidentified
TOTAL
ASTRONOMICAL SIGHTINGS
Meteors
Stars and Planets
Other
TOTAL
1053
1054
1085
1056
1057
1058
1050
1060
1061
175
137
135
222
341
231
144
235
203
73
80
124
148
218
106
63
66
77
78
63
102
03
114
58
31
22
37
70
103
05
132
101
111
65
105
115
62
58
65
61
120
03
75
04
77
0
0
0
0
8
16
0
21
60
42
46
24
14
14
10
12
14
13
509
467
545
570
1*000
827
300
557
501
70
02
70
88
170
168
100
167
110
101
44
62
131
144
56
40
45
78
4
1
4
3
18
7
4
3
6
TtB
155
15?
522
-m
531
TTi
£35
503
OTHER CASES
Hoaxes, Hallucinations,
Unreliable Reports and
Psychological Causes
Missiles and Rockets
Reflections
Flares and Fireworks
Mirages and Inversions
Search and Groundlights
Clouds and Contrails
Chaff
Birds
Radar Analysis
Photo Analysis
Physical Specimens
Satellite Decay
Other
TOTAL
1 0 5
0 0 0
1 7 4
“52 “50 ”65
3 8 10
0 0 1
0 0 3
“5T "T55
14 13
14 12
11 0
5 7
4 S
5 6
3 4
1 4
0 3
B 6
4 6
3 7
0 0
3 3
78 “5?
1
1
(Compiled 1 Nov 65)
1062 1063 2064 TOTAL
136 65
68 73
10 26
04 50
65 86
77 82
15 14
474 355
05 57
36 23
5 5
155 85
11 16
0 13
3 0
3 3
3 0
3 2
4 5
5 2
2 2
0 1
2 3
15 3
3 4
2 4
85 ”5*5
123 2167
71 1167
20 665
00 124B
68 016
142 417
10 237
552 68p7
61 1205
55 805
7 67
T53 5167
34 226
7 83
2 54
7 50
2 37
6 81
0 47
1 27
4 34
2 87
6 40
8 70
3 23
6 48
“55 Old
STATISTICS FOR 1885
C 8
I
(Compiled 18 Jan 1955)
JAW FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
ASTRONOMICAL
AIRCRAFT
BALLOON
INSUFFICIENT DATA
OTHER
SATELLITE
UNIDENTIFIED
PENDING
TOTAL
ASTRONOMICAL CASES
Meteors
Stars and Planets
Other
TOTAL
3
_la
10
45 35 43 35
0
41
252
164 70
lb
IT
lc
10
_3d
27
le
la
36
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
6 8 2 2 4 14 25 13 8 9 5
1
22 12
245
210
33
35
TOTAL
101
9
245
(a) Solar Image (b) Moon (c) Sun (d) Reflected Moonlight, Parhelia, Moon (e) Reflected Moonlight (0 Comet lkeya-Sekt
OTHER CATEGORY
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
Hoaxes, Hallucinations,
Unreliable Reports and
Psychological Causes
Missiles and Rockets
Reflections
Flares and Fireworks
Mirages and Inversions
Search and Ground Lights
Clouds and Contrails
Chaff
Birds
Physical Specimens
Radar Analysis
Photo Analysis
Satellite Decay
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
TT 8
U
lb
S
0
3tuv
m
{'} Tracer Dulic'c 'b; t 4 i*trt*rpr*tiiion w ConwnU,v.?.t Objscts (cl Metal Ball (d) Developer Smear (e) Anomalous Propagation
(0 Kites (g) Electronic Counter Measures (h) Debris In Wind (J) No Image on Film (k) Poor Photo Process (I) Free Falling Object
(m) False Targets (n) Weather Returns (p) Emulelon Flaws (r) Plastic Bags (a) Man on Ground (t) Lightning (u) Chemical Trails
from Research Rocket (v) Missile Launch Activity (w) Gourd
Part Ds Analysis of Project Blue Book Speoial Report No, 14
This section includes the full text of the First Edition, which con-
tained certain press releases issued in 1955 at the time that
Speoial Report No. 14 was announced to the public. The material
which appeared on the inside covers and outside back cover of the
Second Edition has been omitted, as being outdated and non- substantive.
The AFR 200-2 document (pages X-l to X-4) which is bound in at the
center fold of this edition was not included in the first two edi-
tions, and should be ignored in any references to page numbers.
It did not form part of the contents of the original Special Report
No. 14. Additional single copies of the AFR 2D0-2 document may be
requested, free of oharge, by writing to the publisher at the ad-
dress shown on the back cover of this book, enclosing a long self-
addressed envelope bearing first-class postage. Give your ZIP- Code.
Dear Mr* Davidson:
Reference your letter of November 27, I presume
that you have received a loan copy of the Blue Book
from the New York Office of Information Services.
That office was verbally instructed to mail a copy
to you.
Regarding reproduction of the Blue Book, the
Department of Defense oon eiders this to be your own
private affair and neither denies or approves your
plan*
I trust this satisfactorily answers your questions*
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
December 7, 1956
LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC APPAIR*
Sincerely yours,
Philip K. Allen
Deputy, Public Affairs
Mr* Leon Davidson
64 Prospect Street
White Plains, New York
Publisher's Statement
Th« Tetter on pare D-3 from Gen. Kinney indicatea that the U.S.Air
Foree^es^ot distributed the full 316-page Project Blue Book Special Re-
port No 14 because the coat would have been prohibitive. A letter from
^F^Secretaiy 0 Donald A. Quarles, dated July 5, 1956, states. "It has been
estimated that the cost of Drinting enough copies for distribution to the
pSbliJS through auch outlets as libraries and academic institutions would
be between $10 and $15 per copy."
This privately financed edition of the Blue Book report is being is-
sued as a public service. Through the careful elimination of the bulJc of
the tables in the original report, the size has been reduced to about 80
pa^esf rithout loss ofa single wird of the su.ii. text. The full Tables of
Contents of the original report have been retained, so that the reader may
know exactly what has been omitted. The only purpose in the omissions
has been to bring the cost down to a reasonable level, So that widespread
distribution could be established.
It is guaranteed that there has been no change, alteration, or edit-
ing of the material on any page of the Report No. 14 which is reproduced
herein. Each page has been reproduced photographically exactly as it is
in the original Air Force edition. Every single page of the main text
has been reproduced. No part of the text has been omitted.
No author's name appeared on the original edition, and the title
page was exactly as shown on page 1 below. Any errors or faults of
logic, etc., in the main body of the Report No. 14 are those of the
original Air Force author or authors.
The only ways in which the page arrangement of this copy differs from
the original Air Force edition are as follows*
Til The Chi Square tables on pageB 62-67 and 70-75 of the^original^re- ^
L J port were arranged one table per page. For econony, these hove been
placed two per page in this edition.
rvi Pam 76 of the original edition has been reproduced in two parts, as
^ _ /q ‘50 (upper page numbers) of this edition, to emphasize
the division between sections and avoid split-up of the text by the
Chi Square tables.
t3] s 64
inal edition did not put such numbers on the sketches.
m The heading at the top of page 69 (this edition) originally accounted
4 for two pages of the report, and was incorporated at the top of page
69 for econony.
P p r 9 St
page?’ XuYTS case on page 82 of this edition, which was labeled
oaMs "295 and 296" in the original edition.
y-~r*
■ ■ '
Author 1 3 Note to Readers of the Third Editloru
~ This new and enlarged edition of the Blue Book Special Report No, 14 £
la being issued because of the demand which has steadily continued since
this was first published in 1956, and which is now increasing because of
recent sightings. The upsurge of national magazine and television pub-
licity and trade books, in the first half of 1966, is reminiscent of the
similar period in 1952, which preceded the great 1952 "flap"* The author
states here his belief that the C.I.A, was and is responsible for much of
this} the reader may make his or her own evaluation.
" i. Many early press releases and other rare documents have been included
in this edition, which even the Air Foroe itself claims to have copies of
no longer. (See p. C5.) The Table of Contents (p. ii) shows where these
may be found. Comments by the author appear on the first page of each of
the four Parts into which this edition is divided. v
t* . ' / • J*
The author^ files contain many more documents which might be of in-
terest to serious students of the subject, but which had .to be omitted
from this book because of the pressure of space. These include the full
39-page transcript of the famous press conference of MaJ. Gen. John A. San>-
ford at the Pentagon on July 29, 1952, at the height of the Washington
"flap", in which he unhesitatingly denied that the U.S. had any secret de-
vices which had no mass and unlimited powerl (See inside back cover for
reproduction of first page of transcript.)
Another item in the files is Air Force Regulation 200-2, which the
Air Foroe no longer issues to the public. (See p. C5.) The auth or also
has his unclassified notes on the oontents of the 1949 Project GRUDGE Re- \r
jKr' port (See p. Al) including complete lists of the cases studied in that
report, correlations of the sightings, remarks on each case, the official
,i|/; oase numbers and locations, etc. Another item is the foux s -page list of
questions presented to Major Foumet at the Pentagon on Nov. 5, 1952 (See
jgpp. A1,A 2) together with his startling answers.
Other available material includes copies of articles written by the
/V ; 1 author on "The CIA and the Saucers 11 , an "Analysis of a Pre-1947 Sighting"
; (di scu s sing the probable cause of the Roerich sighting in the Gobi Desert
l‘in 1927), results of detective work establishing the origin of a small
/radioactive disk reported by N.I.C.A.P., discussions of the Treraonton films,
particles on Adamski, electronic countermeasures, an "Open Letter to Saucer
^Researchers" (See p. Bl), and studies of the source of the recording of
code messages received by radio by acquaintances of John Otto in Chicago
1957, etcw Files of correspondence with military and civilian agencies,
Congress, eto., are also available.
Please write to the publisher of this Third Edition, the address
-' shown on the back outside cover o£ this book , if interested in obtaining
V.qopies of ary of this specific material. Costs will depend on the volume
pp of requests, method of reproduction, etc. Please indicate whether you might,
interested in purchasing a "Source Book on Saucers", containing a large
..j^ainount of this material.
£Wly 4, 1966
r
Leon Davidson
IjQOVEtft ILLUSTRATE °N i Official Air Force sketch of AVRO aircraft. (See ’p*
mm'
•fhV‘T
f ^X^h.L is+Jh ,., #< ^XwJL
/'//T-At
FLYING SAUCERS r An Analysis of the
AIR FORCE PROJECT BLUE BOOK SPECIAL REPORT NO. 14
Part A» Early Air Foroe Press Releases
Part Bi The CIA Panel Report of 1953
Part Ct The Current (1966) Air Force Blue Book Release
Part Di Analysis of the Special Report No. 14
with an appendix consisting of a photo-offset copy of
the full text of the Air Force Project Blue Book
Special Report No. 14, dated May 5, 1955
and some of the important tables and
figures from that report
Original Air Force Issue (100 copies, restricted distribution) May 1955
First Edition published by Leon Davidson 1000 copies Dec. 1956
Second Edition published by Leon Davidson 1000 copies Oct. 1957
Third Edition published by Ramsey-Wallaoe Corp. 2000 copies July 1966
by Dr. Leon Davidson
Third Edition
consisting of
Library of Congress
Catalog Card Number
/ T/fc* First Edition
■" * m
New material in Third Edition
Copyright 1956 by Leon Davidson
Publishing History
Ramsey-Wallace Corp
Ramsey, N.J.
July 1966
This Third Edition of the Blue Book Special Report No. 14 is loyally and
Respectfully Dedicated to the late
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
President of the United States
1961—1963
If he might have been allowed to live through his full span of office,
the invisible government which increasingly stretches out from our para-
military complex would have been kept under better oontrolj and
vice versa .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Author’s Note to Readers
Part At
Early Air Force Press Releases
Release dated Dec .27, 1949 p« A3
April 3, 1952 A4
April 25,1952 A5
June 17, 1952 A6
(CAA) Dec. 11, 1952 A7
nSen. Flanders* letters
Page Number *
Inside Front Cover
begins on Page A1
tt A pril 7, 1953 A9,A10
July 15, 1953 A20
#Dco. 1953 Fact Sheet A11-A14
Oct. 1954 Summary A15-A18
(Oct. 25, 1955 See p.D5)
# Hell Roarer release
Part Bt
Part C:
Part D:
begins on
Page B1
B1
B2
B3
The CIA PANEL Report of 1953
Letter from National Acadeny of Sciences
Panel Report of January 1953, released April 1958
Letter from former Air Force Officer, May 7, 1958
Letter from Major Tacker, USAF, May 20, 1958
Letter from a scientist, Kay 20, 1958
The Currant (1966) Air Force Release on Project Blue Book
Transmittal letter from Air Force, June 3, 1966
Statistics for 1965
Analysis of the Project Blue Book Special Report Ho. 14.
Publisher's Statement from First and Second Editions D2
Analysis by Dr. Leon Davidson ; begins on Page D4
B4
B6
Cl
C4
C8
D1
Anaxysxs oy mt. jjouu . — ■->
Air Force Press Release dated October 25, ‘1955
Suggestions to the Reader
Original Title Page of Air Force Edition of Report
Table of Contents as published by Air Force
List of Illustrations as published by Air Force
Summary (which accompanied the October 25,1955 release)
The "Flying Snucer" Model
Conclusions, as published by the Air Force
Appendix A. (Index of Tables in Air Force Report)
D5
DIO
1
2
2,3,4
5
50
68
69-78
First page of transoript of Maj. Gen. Samford's press conference. Inside Back Cover.
Air Force Regulation 200-2. (AFR 200-2). See comment on page Dl. X1-X4
*Note. All page numbers given in this Table of Contents refer to the large
handwritten numbers in the upper outside corners of the printed pages,
as assigned for this Edition.
Part At Early Air Force Press Releases on Flying Saucers, etc,
A1
History and Background of this Collection
% interest In flying saucers began In New Mexico in 1949 when I started
work at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory* A local epidemic of "green fireballs"
during the previous year (see p* A6) had led to the formation of one of the
first flying saucer study groups, the Los Alamos Astrophysical Association. This
was composed of scientists and engineers in the Lab., with official support.
After joining this informal group, I carefully studied the secret Project GRUDGE
Report which had been sent to the Lab. by the Air Force to help these studies.
In the GRUDGE Report (Report No. 102 AC 49/15-100, "Unidentified Flying
Objects", Project GRUDGE, Project 2C3-304, Release date August 1949, written by
Lt. H.W.Smith and Mr* G.W.Towles, Air Materiel Command HQ, Wright Field), I was
greatly impressed by Prof. Hynek’s ohapter, in which he stated his opinion that
the green fireballs of the Southwest were probably connected with U.S. researoh
activities. I also was impressed with the chapter by the Air Force Chief Sci-
entist, who concluded that the saucers couldn’t possibly be Russian devices, but
who never even mentioned the possibility that they might be American. Another
interesting item in the report was a copy of RAND Corp. letter L-2563, Maroh 29,
1949, asking for access to the Air Force files on the Maury Island incident
(later discussed in great detail in the book "The Coming of the Saucers", by
Ken Arnold and Ray Pnlraer.)
The press release on p. A3 appeared word-for-word in the Recommendations
section of the GRUDGE report, in compliance with a letter from an Air Force
general (also given in the report), dated in January 1949, directing that the
projeot name be changed from SIGN to GRUDGE, and that the investigation be
discontinued by the end of 1949. The report was issued in August 1949*
On behalf of the Los Alamos Astrophysical Association, I wrote to the Air
Foroe requesting access to the original report files, which had been "micro-
filmed for research use" at Wright Field. I then visited Lt. Smith there on
May 17, 1950, and was able to get some details from him, but instead of for-
warding more data to Los Alamos, the Air Force took back our copy of the GRUDGE
report, and the letter on p. A3 was sent to me. The Los Alamos Lab. officials
also oeased then to support our saucer research efforts.
In January 1952 I moved to Arlington, Va., and asked to inspect the saucer
files at the Pentagon, per letter on p. A3- The reply, enclosing two press re-
leases, is reproduced on pages A4 aixi A5. I visited Lt. Col. Searles and Mr.
A1 Chop at the Pentagon A.F.‘ Press Desk several times, and examined the para-
phrased version of the GRUDGE Report there, verifying that ray notes made at
Los Alamos were covered by this declassified publioly available document.
Further correspondence followed, and I was invited to the Pentagon in Nov.
1952 to meet Col. W. A. Adams and Maj. Dewey J. J. Fournet for discussion of ny
contention thst saucers, if .real, were American. I presented a four-page list
of questions, the answers to which proved to roe that the A.F. "investigation"
of saucers was completely a cover-up for something else. Col. Adams asked Maj.
Fournet to give me a private showing of the "Tremonton films" which, at the time,
convinced me that the saucers must indeed bo real. (See ny article in Leonard
Stringfield' s "C.R.I.F.O. Newsletter", Sept. 1954 issue, and see Capt. Ruppelt's
article in "True" Magazine, May 1954* )
While working in Washington in 1952, I had seen classified photos of
a certain Navy guided missile which disproved (to me, at least) the Air
Force denials that the U.S. had no devices which looked like some of the
saucers reported by the public* Major Foumet stated that he knew nothing
about this missile, and I sincerely believe that he really didn't l Of such
stuff are U.S.A.F. saucer investigators deprivedl
While trying to clear a proposed article reporting this sad state of
affairs, I was paid a visit by a team of three men, from the Office of Naval
Intelligence, the Amy Counter-Intelligence Corps, and the Inspector of
Naval Materiel* These three men assured themselves that I had seen the mis-
sile nhotos legitimately in the course of ny work, and that I had not com-
promised security procedures in handling ny proposed release. (The O.N.
X. man wore black, incidentally, for the information of those readers who
have heard about saucer researchers being silenced after a visit from
"three men in black.") A letter t*rom Senator Flanders (p. AS) was a reply
to ny correspondence to Congress about this missile and the U.F.O.'s.
In letters to the Secretarv of Defense and others in 1953, I pointed
out that the Air Force's attitude of ridiculing and operationally ignoring
all saucer sightings could allow an eneny to send aircraft or missiles
through our defenses easily, merely by putting enough flashing lights on
them to cause them to be reported as "flying saucers"* (I personally veri-
fied that this would be possible, by working as a volunteer in the White
Plains Filter Center of the Ground Observer Corps, and observing the treat-
ment accorded to reports of strange objects.)
Perhaps as a result of such arguments, the Air Force revised its regu-
lation AFR 200-2 in August 1954* pointing out that saucer reports should be
taken seriously, just in case.... The Air Force also stopped denying that
saucers might be American devices, by dropping from its 1954 (and later)
press releases the denial paragraph which it had used up through 1953*
(Conpare the bracketed paragraphs in the press releases reproduced on pages
A10, A14, and AL7.) I then wrote and got cleared the letter shown on p. A19,
pointing out the new position taken by the Air Force. ^ ^
The 1953 release about the "Hell Roarer" flare .(p* A20) shows a typical
cause of some flying saucer reports, and furthermore shows how legi,tlpiqtg
secret military activities have led to flying saucer reports. These Usually
receive immediate perfunctory denials that U.S* activities or aircraft had
had anything to do with causing the reports. Such denials are -properly jus-
tified because of the secret nature of the activities at the time. Ihe
later admissions (as in the p. A20 press release, for example) tend not to
oatoh up with the original denials, so that such events get established in
the saucer literature as "authentic" cases. (See ny article "ECM + CIA » UFO"
in the March- April I960 issue of Flying Saucer Review (London, England).)
{CLOSED <1TH LETTER FROM
[R FORCE DATED APRIL 21,1952
K
«
If
If
13
1%
ta'33
k\ n
ml
•a*.
SH a
as
aSS
°3°
r
I !.-
si 21a
V *> O V o
^ - *o a«s
Us sja^j
11:1 111
suit
fc sa*
st!s&
“is!
2 fr
n. a
3Cg
M
?
*35
H • O
!ji
Of* S
82*i?
g sg|
uuai!
o c d a
SlSc^c
g
15?
S'lfl
^sss
■ Rt?o
‘5? a
va
J II s ® la
» v *j3h “
Jill* till
jfs*
BSgg3
Hi
5S3
+> «-. o S 3
aodoo f.
ssiiiasl
IS&sfa
!*sij«a
*3*<mS83
5 3°H^ a
&3*
*5 o q 4J
H i S = ? &s! "isii
3 lib WS, sills
a ,S3
HU
§g2S
* R 1
** O C -
n*9
<?»
^a
ahu
Hr( OH
3*< s 3
fXdoo
-■’"I
as if
p Bvld
33c “
S3S&
on a
OflHO
JJ2*1
3*8 fc*
SSS3
ll« ,•
5»1I
<3383
ajrt;
33S3
& IS
“ 8
*« O
a a
/\5
sis
Si'
B§
O TJ C
n n *T 4J
SSg?S
83*1“
SS^I
jao c
ilO.HO
5
m
i|lf:
“In 1
ag“^a
s ^5 B s
P OB OH
a33ss
«t s?
a, “ag
POO rl
n P q<o o
oS 5 an
« O 05
4>5 © +* •
2ESg|E
3 82°** 8
a 3 c. d o 3
B a v 3 3 8
"rilsf
h if OfiS
H C H
V« o c o U
2*°3
sasa
28„"
*o3?
o/id4i
O *J H «H
ll-s
^jg? £
SOSO
3255
g .o t»
»p:
ass' 3
2“ **|
D ?S 5
S25 n
3 o V.
O T3
£ O 3 *?
s-ss
if
3s1
338
S o 8
523
<°S
3 n *
*35
SSS
So?
S 5 S
a£*f
a!3|
oil)
8*3
:«a
o i> a
o 8 o
Uls
•^SS
PfI
UH OH
£ a £'~
i°a
538
3 8 «
•2 S3
:i?
GOO
S S
Iss
hSS
!la‘
St
It
2 S'
n ^
V X)
p
»5
232
0 2a
33“
o u
?“2
' r ' , S E
«• o *J
238
w23 8
28^3 v. 5 ^
^a°S °a 2
v O • OB v
i^ga> g
If is fi..*
-S“l ^1
ui io op
3 “3 o 8u
U 4J ♦* O
njq o Vi
>♦3 tp
i>3 m
* . i
g 2-
23 • :
g|«’
23 2w8
C»> 5? -r 2 «S aoo
8E- 2
&23
:U
r«^ oo 3c
oi oh ij c
823« §3
« .“8 £«
8235 22
*a J : £
*21*. *2
52,g «
22 “
IIITEI STATES BEPAITBEIT IF
All
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
Washington 25 > D. C,
ISSUED ABOUT DECEMBER, 1953
PACT SHEET
The following information concerns Air Force investigations
of unusual aerial : phenomena* ‘
The Air Force first, took: off icial notice .of reports of so- • ;
called "flying saucers" in the Fall of 19^7 when reports from the
public •indicated that the <ma.t ter might involve, the air defense of
the United States. The Air Materiel Command, -Wright -Patterson
Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, was directed to set up a project to
collect and evaluate all ^available .faots concerning "flying saucer,
sightings.
The Air Materiel Command, in turn, obtained the services of
civilian, and military astronomers:/ psychologists, electronics
specialists, meteorologists, aeronautical engineers, and physicists'
to. aid in study and research
Two years later, on December 27* 19^9* after 375- reported *
sightings had been Investigated, the Air Force announced the find-
ings of the "flying. sauoer 71 project/ . *’* •’
The majority of .the' sightings could be accounted for as mis* • ;
interpretations of conventional objects, such as balloons and .air-
craft. . Others could be explained as meteorological phenomena or ••
light reflections from orystalized particles iri' the- upper 'atmos-
phere. Some were determined to be hoaxes. However, there still
remained ; a few . unexplained sightings*
The investigation of unknown aerial phenomena ■ 'was • then ‘trans -■
ferred to the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wrigh't-Patterson *
Air Force Base as a continuing project.
During 1952, the bumper year for "saucdr" • sightings, 1,700
reports were received by the Air Force, of which ?0 percent came
from civilian sources. Approximately 20 percent of the sightings
were unexplainable on the basis of information received.
MORE'
During 1953, by mid-year, only 250 reports had been received,
of which nearly 50 percent came from military sources. The number
of unexplainable sightings dropped to 10 percent.
The drop in unexplained sightings is largely due to the in-
creased accuracy and the completeness of reports being received.
To be of value, a report should include such basic data as size,
shape, composition, speed, altitude, direction, and the maneuver
pattern of the objects, V/ithout such information, it is almost
impossible to establish the identity of the object sighted. In
addition, a recent study has shown a direct correlation between
the number of sightings reported and the publicity given to
"saucers" by the nation's preps.
In order to overcome this lack of basic data, and to standard-
ize all reports, a detailed questionnaire was prepared by the Air
Technical Intelligence Center and is now submitted to each person
reporting an unidentified aerial object. It is felt that the
information thus obtained will lower still more the number of
unexplained sightings .
The majority of all reported sightings have been found to
involve either man-made objects such as aircraft or balloons, or
known phenomena such as meteors and planets ,
Present-day Jet aircraft, flying at great speeds and high
altitudes, are often mistaken for unknown objects by the untrained
observer. Sunlight reflections from the polished surfaces of air-
craft can be seen plainly even when the aircraft itself is too
distant to be visible.
Weather balloons also account for a substantial number of
sightings. These balloons, sent to altitudes, of 40,000 feet and
higher, are launched from virtually every airfield in the country.
They are made of rubber or polyethylene, sweil as they gain alti-*
tude, have very good reflective qualities, carry small lights
when launched after dark, and can be 'seen at very high altitudes *
In addition to the ordinary weather balloon, huge 90-foot
balloons, which sometimes drift from coast to coast, are used for
upper air research. These balloons also' have a highly reflective
surface and are visible at extreme, altitudes.
Frequently, unusually bright meteors and planets' will- canoe a
flurry of reports, sometimes from relatively experienced observers.
At certain times of the year, Venus, for instance, is low on the
horizon and will appear to change color' and move erratically due
to hazy atmospheric conditions.
Approximately 12 percent of all sightings reported are from
military and civilian radar facilities. It is fairly well estab-
lished that some of these images are ground objects reflected from
a layer of warm air above the earth (temperature inversion) .
-2- MORE
Temperature inversion reflections can give a return on a radar
scope that is as sharp as that received from an aircraft. Speeds
of these returns reportedly range from zero .to fantastic rates. •
The "Objects" also appear to move .in all directions. Such sight- .
ings have resulted in many fruitless intercept efforts.
Bearing out the theory of temperature' inversion reflection is
an incident which occurred in January -1951 near Oakridge, Tennes-
see. Two Air Force aircraft' attempted to intercept an unidentified
“object" .apd. actually established a radar “lock" on the object, ..
Their altitude at the time was 7,000 feet. The unidentified pb r
Ject, according to their radar, appeared to' be at an elevation of
10 to 25 degrees. Three passes were made in an attempt to close
on the' object. In each instance the pilotB reported that their
radar led them first upward and then down toward a specific point
on ; the ground.; .(One scientific theory holds that light can be.,
similarly reflected from a layer, of warm air above the, earth, If
this- proves to be correct, many visual night sightings could be
accounted for.)
There 'are a small number of unexplained reports which involve
a combination of Beeing the object>and detecting it on radar,
simultaneously, . In each case . the object appeared at. night time,
and had the' appearance- of simple lights .
• ionized clouds have probably 'caused some unidentified radar
return's. • Thunderstorms are identifiable by radar, and radar is
used aboard some aircraft and ships to avoid thbni. Radar returns
have also been received from birds, ice formations in the air, •
balloons, ground reflections,, frequency Interference between pther
radar stations, and. windborne. .objects . Obviously such returns • •
are very' difficult, to identify* especially when they occur during -
darkness. • *
As stated . earlier, the difficulty of evaluating' reports of. - .
all - types is based largely upon the lack of basic data surrounding
the sighting. It is felt that the detailed ■ questionnaire will
remedy ;thd situation In : part.
In addition, special photographic equipment has been developed
for distribution to selected air 'base- control towers and'AIr
Defense Command radar sites. This equipment consists of a ' diffrac-
tion grating camera which separates light into Its component} .parts .
(spectrum) ana registers .them otT film. The principle involved is .
that used by astronomers in determining the composition of the .
stars. In this manner Air Force scientists may be able to deter-
mine the source of unidentified lights. As yet, no photographs
from thiB camera have, been ^received*
There have been some misconceptions concerning the Air Force
handling of “flying saucer" reports. One of these misconceptions
is that the Air Force is either withholding "flying saucer" infor-
mation from the public or cloaking it beneath a security classifi-
cation. This is untrue.
-3-
MORE
\l i /
The names of the persons ' involved in the sightings are ’with-
held in respect of their privacy. They are free, however, to say
what they please. Reports which divulge the capabilities of our
aircraft, radar, and electronic equipment are classified for
obvious reasons. All other information with respect to sightings
is a matter Of public record.
Another misconception centers about photographs of ''flying
qaucers". The Air Force does not possess photographs which prove
the existence of "flying saucers". Because still photographs can
be so easily faked, either by using a mock-up or model against a
legitimate background, or by retouching the negative, they are
practically worthless as evidence. Innumerable objects, from ash-
trays to wash basins, have been photographed while sailing through
the air. Many such photos have been published without revealing
the true . identity of the objects.
More attention is given to moving pictures of unidentified
flying objects since they are more difficult to fake , However.,
only a very few movie -type films have been received by the Air
Force and they reveal' only pinpoints of light moving across the
sky. The Air Force has' been unable to identify the source of
these lights. The images are -too small to analyze properly. Since
ownership of these films remains with the persons taking them the
Air Force is not in a position to give them out. The owners may
do with, them as they please.
Although hoaxes comprise but a- bmall percentage of total
reports, some of them prove to be the most sensational and the .
moBt publicized. However, to insure that the Air Force, will not •
embarass Individuals or groups who are sincere in their beliefs or
who may be victims of such hoaxes, the fact 3 brought out in the
investigations of these false reports are generally not made public
Unfortunately, this policy has often given the erroneous impression
that the Air Force is deliberately denying. or' withholding informa-
tion which, if revealed, would prove the existence of "saucers' .
The Air Force has stated in the past,, and reaffirms at the
present time, that unexplained aerial phenomena are not a secret
weapon, missile, or aircraft, developed by the United States.
None of the three military’ departments nor any other agency in the
Government is conducting experiments, classified or otherwise,
with flying objects which could be a basis for the reported phe- ^
nomena -
By the same token, no authentic physical evidence has been
received establishing the existence of space ships from other
planets .
END
- 4 -
ISSUED ABOUT
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE OCTOBER, 1964
Office of Public Information
Washington 25/ D*. C.
U. S. Air Force Summary of Events and .Information
Concerning the Unidentified Flying Object Program
The Air Force feels a very definite obligation to identify and
analyze things that happen in the air that may have in them menace to
the United States and, because Of- that feeling of obligation and pur-
suit of that interest, the Air Force established an activity known as
the Unidentified Flying Object' Program.
This program was established in 194? when unidentified flying
objects were .being reported in-variouS parts of . the United States.
The reports of sightings reached a peak of 1,700 in 1952 and’ dropped
to a total of 429 in 1953.. During the firBt nine months of .1954 only
254 sightings were reported.
From a . survey of the volume of. sightings received by the Air.
Force, it has been determined that over 80 percent. are explainable as
being known objects. Generally, sighted objects fall into the cate-
gory of: balloons, aircraft, astronomical bodies, atmospheric reflec-
tions, and birds. All reports of unidentified flying objects result,
from either radar or visual sightings. ,
Explanations pertaining to sightings reported from military and
civilian radar facilities are as follows: 1
1. Temperature inversion reflections can give a return on .a
radar scope that is as Sharp as that received from. an aircraft..
Speeds of -these returns reportedly range -fronizero to fantastic rates,.
The "objects 11 also appear to move in all directions,. Such /sightings
have resulted in many fruitless Intercept efforts. *
To possibly bear out the theory of temperature inversion
reflection is .an incident which occurred in January 1951 near Qakridge,
Tennessee.. Two Air Force aircraft attempted to intercept an unidenti-
fied "object” and actually established a radar "lock" oh the object.
Their altitude at the time was* 7> 000 feet. The unidentified object,
according to their radar, appeared. to be at an elevation of 10 to 25
degrees from this altitude. Three passes were made in an attempt to
close on the object. In each instance the pilots reported^ that their
radar led them first upward and , then down toward a specific point on
the ground, (One scientific theory holds that light can be similarly
reflected from a layer of warm air above the earth. If this proves
to be correct, many visual night sightings could be accounted for.)
2. Ionized clouds have-caused some unidentified, radar returns.
Thunderstorms are identifiable by radar and ' radar returns have alBo
been received from ice -formations in the .air, balloons, ground reflec-
tions, frequency interference between other radar stations, and wind-
born objects. Obviously, such returns are very difficult to identify,
specially when they occur during darkness,'
MORE
. IS,
flock of ducks. Flight Interceptions proved these phenomena.
An explanation of known types of visual sightings are as
follows s
1. Pre 3 ent-day jet aircraft, flying at great speeds and high
altitudes, are often mistaken for unknown objects by the untrained
observer. Sunlight reflections from the polished surfaces of air-
craft can be seen plainly even when the aircraft itself is too dis-
tant to be visible. The exhaust of Jet aircraft emits a trail and
often this is seen rather than the aircraft itself.
2. Weather balloons account for a substantial number of sight-
ings. These balloons, 3 ent to altitudes of 40,000 feet and higher,
are launched from virtually every airfield in the country. They are
made of rubber or polyethylene, swell as they gain altitude, have
very good reflective qualities, carry small lights when launched
after dark, and can be seen at very high altitudes.
3. In addition to the ordinary weather balloon, huge 90-foot
balloons, which sometimes drift from coast to coast, are used for
upper air research. These balloons also have a highly reflective
surface and are visibld at extreme altitudes.
4. Frequently, unusually bright meteors and planets will cause 1
a flurry of reports, sometimes from relatively experienced observers.
At certain times of the year, Venus, for instance, is low on the
horizon and will appear to change color and move erratically due to
hazy atmospheric conditions. Since the stars are charted and most
of their characteristics known, many cases are traced to them.
Meteors on the other hind are of rapid single -direction movement and
are only visible for a few seconds. Meteor activity is more common
at certain times of the year than others, and reports of UFO's have
shown a tendency to increase during these periods.
5. Some cases arise which, on the basis' of information rece'ivec
are of a weird and peculiar nature. The objects display erratic
movements and phenomenal speeds. Since maneuvers and speeds of this
kind cannot be traced directly to aircraft, balloons, or known astro-
nomical sources, it is believed' that they are reflections from ob-
jects rather than being objects themselves. For examples suppose
we would hold a mirror in hand under a light, causing a reflection
on the ceiling. Only a slight, quick movement of the hand would
result in erratic movements and phenomenal speeds -~? the reflected,
beam. Reflections may be projected to clouds and haze both from the
ground and air. Many things which are common to the sky have highly
reflective qualities, such as- balloons, aircraft, and clouds. Accu-
rate speeds are also difficult to determine due to the inability
of the reporter to judge distance, angles, and time,
6. Brilliant flashing lights that sometimes appear red and
white in color have been reported by observers. This type ha^s been
traced to a new lighting system of commercial airlines and military
aircraft. Atop the tail section of these aircraft highly reflective
red and white flasher type lights have been installed and are many
times misinterpreted by the ground observer.
- 2 -
MORE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON
2>
owes OF THE SECRETARY
15 November 1956
Dear Mr. Davidson:
I know that during the past several months you have had
considerable correspondence with the Air Force and the Defense
Department regarding Special Report #14, the Air Force Project
Blue Book. The intent of this letter is to inform you of our posi-
tion on the Blue Book as defined by the Secretary of the Air Force.
We distributed a press release and a summary at the time
the report was officially released. We made the full report avail-
able in the Information Offices of this Headquarters and in the Air
Force Information Offices in New York and Los Angeles. The report
is still available at these places. We did not distribute the report
itself because the cost was prohibitive.
While the Air Force has never denied anyone access to the
above-mentioned locations for the purposes of either reading or
copying the report, we have not felt justified to expend public funds
to assist in commercial reproduction of the report.
I trust this serves to make clear the position of the Air Force.
Sincerely,
Director of Information Services
Mr. Leon Davidson
64 Prospect Street
W'hite Plains, New York
D-4
Analysis of the Project Blue Book Report No . 14
by Dr* Leon Davidson
The Blue Book Report No* 14 is reproduced in the pages following
this analysis* The press release on page D-5 (which when issued was ac-
companied by the Summary of the Blue Book Report, pages vii to ix of
the original text) gives the background of ' the Air Force's investigations
which led to the writing of Report No* 14 and its release on October 25,
1955.
A. good history of the earlier Air Force investigations of the "sau-
cers'' (whioh include Projeot SIGN in 1947-48 and Project GRUDGE in 1949-50)
is given in the book "The Report on Unidentified Flvlng Objects" by Edward
J* Ruppelt (Doubleday and Co*, life*, New York, 1956;*
It will probably be evident to careful readers of the Report No. 14,
even in its full original edition, that the Air Force "analysis" will not
bear careful scrutiny* Throughout its "investigations", the Air Force has
withheld information from the publio* As a result, it is impossible for
interested members of the general publio to find out all that has been re-
ported about flying saucers* The publio has not had access to all the
photogranhs and other evidence which the Air Force has amassed on the sub-
ject* Under these conditions, the publio has not been able to draw the
correct conclusions about the nature of the "sauoers"*
At the end of this analysis, before the body of the ^lue Book Report,
will be foynd several paragraphs headed "Suggestion to the .Reader"*
Thoughtful persons who wish to learn the facts about flying sauoers may
find these suggestions of interest*
The analysis. below will be in question- and- answer form*
[l] What percentage of the saucer sighting cases remain "Unknown"?
The press release on the facing page, and the Summary from the report,
were the only material made readily available to the public fcy Projeot
Blue Book. The full text of the report was essentially unavailable to
the public, as shown in the Record of Hearings of the House Subcommittee
on Government Information (Rep. John E* Moss, Chairman) for Nov* 15, 1956*
One might wonder whether the Air Force had q otually wanted to keep the
full report from the publio, and if so, why?
The answer may be found \fj reading the text and tables of the report,
and comparing this with the Summary, distributed publicly with the press re-
lease. The key to the answer Is contained in Fig. 8 (orig. p* 24) and
Tobies Al, A2, and A3 (orig. pp. 107 and 108). Fig. 8 shows that Unknown
Eightings constitute 33*3jS of all the object sightings for which the re-
liability of the sighting is considered "Excellent"* Tables A1--A3 agree
Y/ith thisj even if sightings of lesser reliability are included, the per-
centage of Unknown sightings Is not less than about 20j£. Note that the
information in. the main body of the report covers the years 1947—1952*
(analysis continues on page D-7)
IEWS RELEASE
LEASE NOTE DATE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
Washington 25, D. C.
I
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 25, 1955 LI 5-6700, Ext 75131
AIR FORCE RELEASES STUDY ON
UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL* ;0B JECTS
The results of an investigation begun by the Air Force in 1947
into the field of Unidentified Aerial Objects (so-called flying
saucers) were released by the Air Force today.
No evidence of the existence of the popularly-termed "flying
saucers was found.
Thj report was based on study and analysis by a private
scientific group under the supervision of the Air Technical Intel-
ligence Center at Dayton, Ohio. Since the instigation of the in-
vestigation more than seven years ago, methods and procedures have
been so refined that of the 131 sightings reported during the first
four months of 1955 only three per cent were listed as unknown. (A
summary of the report is attached.)
Commenting on this report. Secretary of the Air Force Donald A.
Quarles aaid: On the basis of this study we believe that no
objects such as those popularly described as flying saucers have
overflown the United .-States . I f^el certain that even the unknown
three per cent could have been explained as conventional phenomena
or illusions if more complete observational data had been available.
^ ^ H ? we y er ' we are now enter *ng a period of aviation technology
in which aircraft of unusual configuration and flight characteris-
tics will begin to appear.
The Air Force and the other Armed Services have under develop-
ment several vertical-rising, high performance aircraft, and as
early as last yqar a propeller driven vertical-rising aircraft was
flown. The Air Force will fly the first Jet-powered vertical-
rising airplane in a matter of days. We have another project under
contract with AVRO Ltd., of Canada, which could result in disc-
shaped aircraft somewjjat similar to the popular concept of a flying
saucer.. An available picture, while only an artists* conception,
could illustrate such an object, (Photograph is available at
Pictorial Branch, Room 2D780, Ext. 75331').
"While some of these may take novel forms, such as the AVRO
project, they are direct-line descendents of conventional aircraft
and should not be regarded as supra -natural or mysterious. We ex-
pect to develop airplanes that will fly faster, higher and perhaps
farther than present- designs, but they will still obey natural laws
a manned, they will still be manned by normal terrestrial air-
men".' Other than reducing runway requirements we do not expect
vertical -rising aircraft to have more outstanding military charac-
teristics than conventional types •
MORE
•p-6
"Vertical-rising aircraft capable of transition to supersonic
horizontal flight will be a new phenomenon in our skies, and under
certain conditions could give the illusion of the so-called flying
saucer. The Department, of Defense will make every effort within
bounds of security to keep the public informed of these developments
so they can be recognized for what they are."
Mr. Quarles added: "I think we must recognize that other
countries also have the capability of developing vertical-rising
aircraft, perhaps of unconventional shapes. However we are satis-
fied at this time that none of the sightings of so-called *f lying
saucers' reported in this country were in fact aircraft of foreign
origin."
END
Attachment
- 2 -
Since the Summary gives figures of 9 % for the Unknown cases in
1953—1954 » and only for the Unknown oases in 1955 (up to May 5) , it
is evident that persons not having the full report available would not
know that ZJf» to 30^ of the cases had been left as Unknown in the main
study. The Suninary absolutely fails to quote any numerical results for
1947—1952. One may surmise that the Air Force did not want the public
to know that such a high percentage of the reports remained Unknown, and
that this was one reason for making the full report unavailable, for all
practical purposes, to the public.
[2] What is the ’meaning and purpose of the Chi Square test (pages 60 — 76
of the original edition)?
The paragraph at the bottom of page 60 and top of page 6l (orig. ed.)
explains the purpose of the "Chi Square” test, and the statistical theory
involved is described on page 6l. The reason for making this test was
Biraply thisi The author(s) of the report felt that it might' be possible
to show by this teBt that the Unknown cases were really just like the
Known cases, after all. If this could be shown, it would then have been
Bimple to say that the Unknowns had been essentially the same' ’objects as
the K nown s, and there would have been no residual 1 ‘unknown" type of object
("flying saucer") to talk about.
Ab it turned out, the author (s) had to admit, at top of p. 68 (orig.)
that there was very little probability that the Unknowns were the same as
the Knowns. Bat they refused to admit that this meant that "saucers"
could be a real type of novel object. Notice how they carry on the struggle
to prove that the Unknowns are the same as the Knowns, until at the end
of the "Chi Square Teat" section, they admit that the results are incon-
clusive.
[3] What is the definition of "Flying Saucer" used in the Blue Book Report?
On p. 1 of the original text, third paragraph, a definition is given
which is used by the author (s) of the report. *t implies that some "secret
military weapon" may be involved, by use of the words "Free World" and
"intruder aircraft There is no mention of "interplanetary vehicles"
either from terrestrial or extra-terrestrial sources.
Also on page 1, in the second paragraph, is a facetious definition of
"flying saucer" which, if adopted, would prevent any identification or
explanation of flying saucers, by its very wording.
Unfortunately, the author(s) of the report, when referring to the
definition of "flying saucer", (as for instance in their Conclusions, orig.
p. 94* fourth paragraph), merely refer to "'flying saucers' (as defined
on Page l) "• This leaves somewhat confused the question of which of the
two definitions on page 1 they are referring to.
!;
i
[4] How did the author (s) arrive at the conclusion, given at the end of
the first full paragraph on orig. page 93, that "•••it ia still impos-
sible to develop a picture of what a 'flying saucer' is."?
Persons trained in science and engineering, and those educated in the
fields of law, accounting, business, medecine, or other disciplines in
which logical thinking is a requisite, should be able to unravel the utter
nonsense contained ih'vthe section of the report called " The ' flying
Saucer' Model", on orig. pages 76—94* It should be sufficient to call
attention to several facts*
(a) The author(s) found only twelve cases reported in enough detail to
merit consideration. Anyone who has followed the subject knows of
many other cases of detailed sightings which would serve as well, or
better, than the dozen selected for the Blue Book analysis.
(b) In discussing these twelve detailed oases, the report omits details
such as the names of the localities and other identifying information
which there is absolutily no reason to withhold. The re 0 son for this
may be to try to hinder readers who might want to compare other ver-
sions of those same cases with the versions presented by the report.
For instance. Case I on page 76 (orig.) is apparently Cases 151 and 152
of the August. 1949, Project GHUDGii Report ( Report No.. 102- AC, 49A5-
100, HQ, Air Materiel Command, Wright Field). The location ia Indiana-
polis. Case II too£ plaoe in Flint, Mich. Case III is from Sioux
City, Iowa, and is Reported as Case No. 7 in the Life Magazine article
of April 7, 1952. Case V is the Chiles- Whitted oaBe, from Montgomery,
Alabama, which is written lip in many books*
(0) The sketches of the objects in the Report have a certain studied
awkwardness about them, as if the artist had been instructed to make
the objects look as different as possible and as queer as. possible.
For example, the sketch of Case III resembles two frankfurters lying
one across the other. The artist ia certainly a skilled drafts man |
the shading very clearly shows the cylindrical shapes of the frank-
furters. let the description given by the pilots in Case III speci-
fies "an airplane with a cigar-shaped body and straight wings".
This sketch is absurd as an illustration of that. Likewise, the
stxange white markings or openings on the Case JLS sketches have no
relation to the acconpanying text.
(d) The failure to place the sketches of Case VI and Case VIII on the
same page hides a very remarkable resemblance.
(e) The key to the situation is found in the extra conditions thrown in
at the middle of page 91 (orig.). Presumably all twelve oases had
fulfilled such conditions or they would not have survived the weedlng-
out process. (See p. 77, orig.). The prize example is paragraph (6)
on page 92. By throwing Case VI out at this point, the author (s)
were then able to throw out Case VIII In par. (8), since the match be-
tween these two sketches had been lost by eliminating Case VI. Like-
wise, Case HI was eliminated because Case II had been thrown out.
3-9
[5] Were the author (s) justified on page 93 (orig.) in saying
the following?
"It may be that some reports represent observations of not one but
several classes of objects that might have been "flying saucers"! how-
ever, the lack of evidence to confirm even one class would seem to make
this possibility remote."
This appears to be another example of faulty logic. The authors)
had just thrown out cases because they did not resemble (supposedly) any
other oases. This should be considered evidence that there may be more
than one class of "flying saucers". In fact, at the top of page 91 (orig.)
the author (s) list four categories of shapes, which might be considered
to define four "classes" of saucers.
The logical error here may be seen in the paraphrase of the above
quotation: " We found many different types of saucers. We could not find
just one class. We could not find even one class, therefore, we could
not find more than one class." This type of reasoning, in which the
author (s) of the Blue Book report indulged, is utterly absurd.
[6] What are the important points in the "Conclusions" on p. 94 (orig.)?
The author (s) admit in the first sentence that they cannot prove that
"flying saucers" do not exist. In the last sentence, they do not deny
that saucers could be novel governmental devices, now existing. Nowhere
is there any discussion as to whether or not there is evidence to prove or
disprove that saucers might be extraterrestrial objects or devices.
[7] What vitally important technical aspect was omitted from the analysis
by the Blue Book Project?
At the bottom of page 6 (orig.), it is explained that, after the study
was well under way, it was found that there was a "...need for the defini-
tion of a new factor relating to the maneuvers of the object or objects. ••
[Maneuvers would include the well-known characteristics of hovering, very
sharp turns, rapid speed changes, IfOubly Tlightjf* swinging likir a_psnduliim,
etc.J The last paragraph of page 6 (orig.) states "...at the time that
the maneuver factor was determined to be critical, it was physically im-
practicable to... reevaluate the original data. Therefore, no code for
maneuverability has been included.. •"
[8] What significant change was made in the categories provided for final
identifications, before the final report was written and issued by the Air
Force?
On page 12 (orig) the categories "Insufficient Information" and "Un-
known" are explained. The whole report is written on the tasls o. these
two oategoriee and the others listed on page 10 However, a most
interesting change may be observed on page 295 (orig.) which is page 82
of thiB edition.
It will be seen, in the codes for Final Identification, that the
category originally called "Rockets and Missiles", in the early work,
of the analysis, was ohanged to be called ^Insufficient Information".
Likewise, the final category of "Unknown" had originally been called
"Electromagnetic Phenomenon". (The typewritten strikeovers and changes
on page 295 (orig.) appear that way in the original Air Force Edition,
and this edition is a true photo-copy of that page.)
It is interesting to speculate on the reason for changing the names
of these categories. Note that the objects finally "identified" as in
the "Unknown" oategory include almost all of the oases which would seem
to be aotual "flying Bauoers" as the public understands the term. There-
fore, the fact that the Air Force originally called this oategory "electro-
magnetic phenomenon" may indicate that the Blue Book investigative staff
had reason to bilieve that objects like the typical "flying sauoer" might
be electromagnetioally propelled. This is of more than casual interest
because of the persistent stories that circulate, which indicate that
"saucers" make use of some system of electromagnetic propulsion*
Suggestion to the Reader
After reading the Blue Book Report which starts on the next page, if
you feel a desire to see the complete set of tables and graphs (omitted
here for reasons of cost), you might try to borrow a copy of the full
report from the Air Force. Write to the Secretary of the Air Force,
Pentagon Building, Washington 25, D.C., and ask for one of the loan copies
of Blue Book Special Report No. 14*
If, after reading the report as given here, you feel that the Air
Force should be able to give a definite answer to such speoifio questions
as "Do flying objects of (such and such) shape exist?", you might write
to your Congressman or Senator, or to the President of the United States,
and ask his assfebance in obtaining the answer to your speoifio question
from the Air Force.
On page 37 of the official transcript of the press conference of
Maj* Gene, John At, Samford at the Pentagon- July 29, X952 8 a question
was asked of the Goneralt "Is it some very highly secret new weapon
that wetre working on that's causing these flying saucer reports?"
The General answered* "We have nothing that has no mass and unlimited
powerl " The transcript indicates [Laughter] at that point, and well it
might. If you believe that a more meaningful and definite answer is in
order from the Air Force, you might write to any of the officials men-
tioned above for a specific answer to the specific question quoted in
this paragraph.
The publisher of this edition would be very happy to learn of any
responses which might be obtained by readers fallowing any of these
suggestions. Also, any comments from readers would be welcome.
(ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS)
PROJECT NO. 10073
5 MAY 1955
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT -PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
OHIO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION |
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DATA 3
REDUCTION OF DATA TO MECHANIZED COMPUTATION FORM 4
Questionnaire 4
Coding System and Work Sheet 6
Identification of Working Papers 7
Evaluation of Individual Reports 10
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA • h
Frequsncy and Percsntaga Distributions by Characteristics 14
Graphical Presentation 16
Advanced Study of the Data 16
Position of the Sun Relative to the Observer 14
Statistical Chi Square Test 60
The "Flying Saucer" Model ‘ . . . 76
CONCLUSIONS 94
/
APPENDIX A. TABULATION OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE y '
DISTRIBUTIONS BY CHARACTERISTICS 95
APPENDIX B. WORKING PAPER FORMS 255
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Frequency of Sightings by Year for Object, Unit, and Ail Sightings 17
Figure 2 Distribution of Evaluations of Object, Unit, and AH, Sightings for All Years ......... 18*
I
Figure 3 Distribution of Objsct Sightings by Evaluation for All Years With Comparisons
of Each Year for Each Evaluation Group 19
Figure 4 Distribution of Object Sightlnge by Evaluation for All Years and Each Year 20
Figure 5 Distribution of Objsct Sightings by Evaluation Within Months for All Years . ......... 21
Figure 6 Distribution of Object Sightings by Certain and Doubtful Evaluations for '
All Years and Each Year • 22
Figure 7 Frequency of Object Sightings and Unknown Object Evaluations by >
Months, 1947-1952 23
Figure 8 Distribution of Objsct Sightings by Sighting Rsllabllity Groups With
Evaluation Distributions for Each Group . I • ■ 24
Figure 9 Distribution of Object Sightings Among the Four Sighting Reliability
Cr;ap: fcr All Yct.rs tnd Eich Tssr . . . c. . . .. . . . 25
Figure 10 Distribution of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, Segregatsd
by Military and Civilian Observers, With Evaluation Distribution
for Each Segregation ...,| 26
Figure 11 Distribution of Object Sightings by Reported Colors of Object(s) With
Evaluation Distribution for Each Color Group 27
Figure 12 Distribution of Object Sightings by Number of Objects Ssen per Sighting
With Evaluation Distribution for Each Group 28
Figure 13 Distribution of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting With Evaluation
'Distribution for Each Duration Group 29
ill
Figure 15 Dietribution of Object Sighting* by Shape of Object(a) Reported With
Evaluation Distribution for Each Shape Group
Figure 16 Distribution of Object Sightings by Reported Speed of Object(s) With
Evaluation Distribution for Each Speed Group
32
Figure 17 Distribution of All Sightings by Observer Location for All Years and Each Year ........ 33
Figure 18 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Color, 1947-1952 . 34
Figure 19 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Number of Objects
per Sighting, 1947-1952 # 35
Figure 20 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Speed, 1947-1952 .......... 36
Figure 21 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Duration, 1947-1952 ......... 37
Figure 22 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Shape, 1947-1952 38
Figure 23 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Light Brightness, 1947-1952 39
Figure 24 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Astronomical
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Astronomical . ..........
Figure 25 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Aircraft
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Aircraft ................... 41
Figure 26 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Balloon
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Balloon . 42
Figure 27 Comparison of Vdonthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Insufficient
Information Vd'rsus Total Object Sightings Less Insufficient Information .......... 43
Figure 28 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Other
Versus ToUl Object Sightings Less Other 44
Figure 29 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Unknown
Versus ToUl Object Sightings Less Unknown 45
Figure 30 Characteristics Profiles of Object Sightings by Total Sample, Known Evaluations,
and Individual Known Evaluations, With Unknown Evaluations Superimposed 46
Figure 31 Frequency of Object, Unit, and All Sightings Within the U. S., 1947-1952, by
Subdivisions of One Degree of Latitude and Longitude 47
Figure 32 Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for the Twelve Regional Areas of
:t!» L'. * , Withnhs Sirajcglc Ai-c=.=^Lscatcs . . ..... f ....... 48
Figure 33 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings In the Strategic Areas of the
Central East Region ......... 49
Figure 34 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
Central Midwest Region SO
Figure 35 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
Central Farwsst Region 51
Figure 36 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
South Midwest Region 52
Figuro 37 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightiag-j In the Strategic Areas of the
South West Region ....... 53
iv
4 -
LIST or ILLUSTRATIONS
(Continued)
Tlgura 38 Comp.ri.on of Ev.lu.tion of Object Sighting. In th. Strategic Area. of th*
South Farwsat Region
Figure 39 Di.gr.m of . Celestial Sphere * * *
Figure 40 Frequency of Object Sighting, by Angle of Elev.tion of the Sun, Interval,
of 10 Degree, of Angle,
Figure 41 Frequency of Object Sighting, by Local Sun Time, Interval, of One Hour
Table 1 Object Sighting.
Table U Chi Square Te.t of Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on the Ba.ie of Color
Table UI Chi Square Te.t of Known. Ver.u. Unknown, -on the Ba.ie of Humber
Table IV Chi Square Te.t of Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on the Ba.i. of Sha)>*
Table .V Chi Square Te.t of Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on the Baal, of Duration of Ob.ervation
Table VI Chi Square Te.t of Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on the Basis of Speed
Table VII Chi Square Te.t of Known. Ver.ua Unknown, on the Ba.i. of Light Brightne.s
Table VIII Chi Square Te.t of Revi.sd Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on the Ba.i. of Color
Table IX Chi Square Te.t of Revi.sd Known. Ver.u* Unknown, on th* Ba.i. of Number
Table X Chi Square Te.t of Revi.sd Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on th* Ba.i. of Shape
Table XI Chi Square Te.t of Revi.sd Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on th* Ba.i. of
Duration of Ob.ervation
Table XII Chi Square Te.t of Reviled Known. Ver.u. Unknown, on th. Ba.i. of Speed .* * * *
Table XIII Chi Square Te.t of Revi.sd Known. Ver.ue Unknown, on the Ba.i. of Light Brightness
Page
54
56
57
59
60
62
63
64
65
b6
67
70
71
72
73
74
75
v and vi
SUMMARY
Reports of unidentified aerial objects (popularly termed "flying
saucers" or "flying discs") have been received by the U.S. Air Force
since mid-1947 from many and diverse sources. Although there was no
evidence that the unexplained reports of unidentified objects constituted
a threat to the security of the U.S., the Air Force determined that all
reports of unidentified aerial objects should be investigated and evaluated
to determine if "flying saucers" represented technological developments
not known to this country.
In order to discover any pertinent trend or pattern inherent in the
data, and to evaluate or explain any trend or pattern found, appropriate
methods of reducing these data from reports of unidentified aerial objects
to a form amenable to scientific appraisal were employed. In general, the
original data upon which this study was based consisted of impressions and
interpretations of apparently unexplainable events, and seldom contained
reliable measurements of physical attributes. This subjectivity of the data
presented a major limitation to the drawing of significant conclusions, but
did not invalidate the application of scientific methods of study.
The reports received by the U.S. Air Force on unidentified aerial
objects were reduced to IBM punched-card abstracts of the data by means
of logically developed forms and standardized evaluation procedures.
Evaluation of sighting reports, a crucial step in the preparation of the data
for statistical treatment, consisted of an appraisal. of the reports and the
subsequent categorization of the object or objects described in each report.
A detailed description of this phase of the study stresses the careful
attempt to maintain complete objectivity and consistency.
Analysis of the refined and evaluated data derived from the original
reports of sightings consisted of (l) a systematic attempt to ferret out any
distinguishing characteristics inherent in the data of any of their segments,
(2) a concentrated study of any trend or pattern found, and (3) an attempt
to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observa-
tions of technological developments not known to this country, .
The first step in the analysis of the data revealed the existence of
certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified
ard those not identified. Statistical methods.^! teaming .when applied indicated
a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant. An
attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represented
observations of technological developments not known to this country necessi-
tated a thorough re -examination and re-evaluation of the cases of objects not
originally identified; this led to the conclusion that this probability was very
small.
The special study which resulted in this report (Analysis of
of Unidentified Aerial Objects, 5 May 1955) started in 1953. To provide the
study group with a complete set of files, the information cut-off date was
established as of the end of 1952. It will accordingly be noted that the
statistics contained in all charts and tables in this report are terminated
vii
with the year 1952. In these charts, 3201 cases have been used.
As the study progressed, a constant program was maintained for
the purpose of making comparisons between the current cases received
after 1 January 1953, and those being used for the report. This was done
in order that any change or significant trend which might arise from
current developments could be incorporated in the summary of this report.
The 1953 and 1954 cases show a general and expected trend of
increasing percentages in the finally identified categories. They also show
decreasing percentages in categories where there was insufficient informa-
tion and those where the phenomena could not be explained. This trend had
been anticipated in the light of improved reporting and investigating pro-
cedures.
Official reports on hand at the end of 1954 totaled 4834. Of these,
425 were produced in 1953 and 429 in 1954. These 1953 and 1954 indi-
vidual reports (a total of 854), were evaluated on the same basis as were
those received before the end of 1952. The results are as follows:
Balloons
- 16%
Aircraft
- 20%
Astronomical
- 25%
Other
- 13%
Insufficient Info
- 17%
Unknown
- 9%
As the study of the current cases progressed, it became increasingly
obvious that if reporting and investigating procedures could be further improved,
the percentages of those cases which contained insufficient information and
those remaining unexplained would be greatly reduced. The key to a higher
percentage of solutions appeared to be in rapid "on the spot" investigations
by trained personnel. On the basis of this, a revised program was estab-
lished by A F Reg. 200-2 Subject: "Unidentified Flying Objects Reporting"
(Short Title: UFOB) dated 12 August 1954.
This new program, which had begun tp show marked results before
January 1955, provided primarily that the 4602d Air Intelligence Service
Squadron (Air Defense Command) would carry out all field investigations.
This squadron has sufficient units and is so deployed as to be able to arrive
"on the spot" within a very short time after a report is received. After
treatment by the 4602d AISS, all information is supplied to the Air Technical
Intelligence Center for final evaluation. This cooperative program has re-
sulted, since 1 January 1955, in reducing the insufficient information cases
to 7% and the unknown cases to 3%, of the totals.
The period 1 January 1955 to 5 May 1955 accounted for 131 unidentified
aerial object reports received. Evaluation percentages of these are as follows:
viii
Balloons - 26%
Aircraft - 21%
Astronomical - 23%
Other - 20%
Insufficient Info - 7%
Unknown 3%
ESSsSSSsSSSS-S ptt
towards the vanishing point.
Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is
considered to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects
examined in this study represent observations of technological developments
outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge. It is emphasized
that there has been a complete lack of any valid evidence of physical matte
in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.
ix
8
315 and 316
INTRODUCTION
VORK OFFICE OF INFORMATION SERVICE]
P u b l !. w ^ ;?'!i *■'* lIoti Division . ,
•In Jnn eP j y»4 7 t K*nnethyA*n Idaho ’. businessman and
orivatrpiKl^W^^ipa^e**^ amMamous sighting of a chainl.ke
formation of i“c&i£#d tfeje^near Mount Rainier, Washington. Result-
ing newspaper publicity of -this incident caught the public interest, and,
shortly thereafter, a rash of reports of unidentified aerial objects spawned
the teJm "flying saucers". During the years since 1947, many reports of
unidentified aerial objects have been received by the Air Force from many
and diverse sources.
The unfortunate term "flying saucer", or "flying disc", because of
its widespread and indiscriminate use, requires definition Many defini-
tions have been offered, one of the best being that originated by Dr. J.
Allen Hynek, Director of the Emerson McMillin O serva ory ° e
State University, who has taken a scientific interest in the problem of
unidentified aerial objects since 1949. Dr. Hynek' s definition o the term
is "any aerial phenomenon or sighting that remains unexplained to the
Hewer at least long enough for him to write a repo* about it"( ). Dr Hynek,
elaborating on his definition, says, "Each flying saucer, so defined, has
associated with it a pr.bable lifetime. It wanders in the field of public in-
spection like an electron in a field of ions, until • captured' by an explana-
tion which puts an end to its existence as- a ' flying saucer ).
This definition would be applicable to any and all of the sightings
which remained unidentified throughout this study. However, the term
"flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel,
airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily ex-
plainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by t
Free World. This would include such items as natural phenomena that are
not yet completely understood, psychological phenomena, or intruder air-
craft of a type that may be possessed by some source in large * nou 8
numbers so that more than one independent mission may have been flown
and reported. Thus, these phenomena are of the type which should have
beer observed and reported more than once.
Since 1947, public interest in the subject of unidentified aerial objects
fluctuated more or less within reasonable limits until the s-mer of 952,
when the frequency of reports of sightings reached a peak, possibly stimu-
lated by several articles on the subject in leading popular magazines.
Early in 1952, the Air Force' s cumulative study and analys ‘ S .
reported sightings indicated that the majority of reports could ba ‘r
for as misinterpretations of known objects (such as meteors, a ’ u
aircraft), a few as the result of mild hysteria, and a very few a .the result
of unfamiliar meteorological phenomena and light aberrations. ow ,
(1) Hynek, J. A., -Unuiuil Aetlal Phenomena" . Journal of ihe Optical Society of Ametlca, 43 (4)
pp 311-314, April, 1953.
MliMJ I/T. " ?-
10
March, 1952, the Air Force decided that all reports of unidentified
aerial objects should be investigated and evaluated to determine if flying
saucers" represented technological developments not known to this country.
Originally, the problem involved the preparation and analysis of about
1 300 reports accumulated by the Air Force between 1947 and the end of
March, 1952. During the course of the work, the number of reports sub-
mitted’for analysis and evaluation more than tripled, the result of the un-
precedented increase in observations during 1952. Accordingly, this study
is based on a number of reports considered to be large enough for a pre-
liminary statistical analysis, approximately 4,000 reports.
This study was undertaken primarily to categorize the available
reports of sightings and to determine the probability that any of the reports
of unidentified aerial objects represented observations of "flying saucers".
With full cognizance of the quality of the data available for study, yet with
an awareness of the proportions this subject has assumed at times in the
public mind, this work was undertaken with all the seriousness accorded
to a straightforward scientific investigation. In order to establish the
probability that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects represented
observations of "flying saucers", it was necessary to make an attempt to
answer the question "What is a ‘flying saucer* ?". However, it must be
emphasized that this was only incidental to the primary purpose of the
study, the determination of the probability that any of the reports of un-
identified aerial objects represented observations of "flying saucers", as
defined on Page 1.
The basic technique for this study consisted of reducing the available
data to a form suitable for mechanical manipulation, a prerequisite for the
application of preliminary statistical methods. One of International
Business Machine Corporation* s systems was chosen as the best available
mechanical equipment.
The reduction of data contained in. fighting reports into a form suit-
able for transfer to IBM punched cards was extremely difficult and time
consuming.
For this study a panel of consultants was formed, consisting of both
experts within and outside ATIC. During the course of the work, guidance
and advice were received from the panel. The professional experience
available from the panel covered major scientific fields and numerous
specialized fields.
All records and working papers of this study have been carefully
preserved in an orderly fashion suitable for ready reference. These
2
records include condensations of all individual sighting reports, and the
IBM cards used in various phases of the study.
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DATA
Reports of sightings were received by the U. S. Air Force from a
representative cross section of the population of the U. S. , and varied
widely in completeness and quality. Included were reports from reputable
scientists, housewives, farmers, students, and technically trained mem-
bers of the Armed Forces. Reports varied in length from a few sentences
stating that a "flying saucer" had been sighted, to those containing t ou-
sands of words, including description, speculation, and advice on how to
handle the "problem of the 'flying saucers'". Some reports were of hig
quality, conservative, and as complete as the observer could make them,
a few originated from people confined to mental institutions. A critical
examination of the reports revealed, however, that a high percentage of
them was submitted by serious people, mystified by what they had seen and
motivated by patriotic responsibility.
Three principal sources of reports were noted in the preliminary
review of the data. The bulk of the data arrived at ATIC th^gh regula
military channels, from June, 1947, until the middle of 1952.
A second type of data consisted of letters reporting sightings sent by
of letters was received following this publicity.
A third type of data was that contained in questionnaire forms com-
pleted by the observer himself. A que s "* * TeTec te7 group of writers
the course of this study, was mailed by AT IC to a •«*«« J / wtll raed .
of direct letters with the request that the form be
Approximately 1,000 responses were received by ATI .
In general, the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates
of physical characteristics rather immediately,
more, most of the reports were not reduced to wr.tte ^
The time between sighting and report vane concerning the validity
Both of these factors introduced an e emen o doub^ “"“was fntensified by
of the original data, and increased its subje cti V ate speeds , dis-
the recognized inability of the average in * v * degree of accuracy. In
tances, and sizes of objects in the air J analysis of such reports in
spite of these limitations, methods [ n the possibility of
sufficiently large groups are valid. The dang
forgetting the subjectivity of the data at the time that conclusions are
drawn from the analysis. It must be emphasized, again and again, that any
conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what
many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be.
Altogether, the data for this study consisted of approximately 4,000
reports of sightings of unidentified aerial objects. The majority were re-
ceived through military channels or in the form of observer-completed
questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from un-
questionably reliable sources. Sightings made between June, 1947, and
December, 1952, were considered for this study. Sightings alleged to have
occurred prior to 1947 were not considered, since they were not reported
to official sources until after public interest in "flying saucers" ha<* been
stimulated by the popular press.
REDUCTION OF DATA TO MECHANIZED COMPUTATION FORM
As received by the Air Technical Intelligence Center, the sighting
reports were not in a form suitable for even a quasi-scientific study. A
preliminary review of the data indicated the need for standardized interro-
gation procedures and supplemental forms for the reduction of currently
held and subsequently acquired data to a form amenable to scientific
appraisal.
The plan for reduction of the data to usable form consisted of a pro-
gram of development comprising four major steps: ( 1) a systematic listing
of the factors necessary to evaluate the observer and his report, and to
identify the unknown object observed; (2) a standard scheme for the trans-
fer of data to a mechanized computation system; (3) an orderly means of
relating the original data to all subsequent forms; and (4) a consistent pro-
cedure for the identification of the phenomenon described by the original
data.
Questionnaire
The first reports received by ATIC varied widely in completeness
and quality. Air Force Letter 200-5U) and Air Force Form llzU) were
attempts to fix responsibility for and improve the quality of the reports of
sightings. To coordinate past efforts and to provide standardization for the
(1) A modified Alt Force Form 112 lira pertinent queitionl to be answered in regard to an unidenliflcd-objcct
sighting. , i a
(2) Air Force Letter 200-5 places responsibility with the Air Force for the investigation, repotting, and
analysis of unidentified aerial objects. This letter is dated 29 April 1952.
/
future, it\vas imperative to develop a questionnaire form listing the factors
necessary for evaluation of the observer and his report, and identification
of the unknown objects. In addition, it was decided that such a questionnaire
should be designed to serve as an interrogator' s guide, and as a form for
the observer himself to complete when personal interrogation was not possi-
ble or practicable.
Ideally, a questionnaire for the purposes required should contain
questions pertaining to ail technical details considered to be essential for
the statistical approach, and should serve to obtain a maximum of informa-
tion from the average individual who had made a sighting in the past or
would be likely to be reporting sightings in the future. Besides these dis-
crete facts, an integrated written description of a sighting would be re-
quired, thus enabling the reported facts of the sighting to be corroborated.
Also, a narrative description might allow subtle questions to be answered
concerning the observer' s ability, such as indirect questions that would
reveal his reasoning ability, suggestibility, and general mental attitude.
As a whole, then, the information contained in a questionnaire should make
possible the classification and evaluation of the sighting, the rating of the
observer, the probability of accuracy of reported facts, and the identifica-
tion of what was reported by the observer as unidentified.
During the course of this project, three questionnaire forms were
developed, each intended to be an improved revision of the one preceding.
The improvements were suggested and confirmed by members of the panel
of consultants connected with this project.
The original form was evolved by the panel of consultants as their
first work on this project. It was intended to allow the start of the reduc-
tion of reports to discrete data, and was immediately subjected to exten-
sive review and revision by the panel. The revised (second) form was
subjected to a trial test before adoption. ATIC sent a copy to observers
reporting sightings, with the request that the form be completed and re-
turned. Of the first 300 questionnaires returned during July and August,
1952, 168 were analyzed by a consulting psychologist. On the basis of this
mv-.lvaUr plus the experience gained in. working with past reports, the final
form of the questionnaire - the U. S. Air Force Technical Information
Sheet - was evolved. Copies of the three forms of the questionnaire, in
the order of their development, are shown as Exhibits Bl, B2, and B3 in
Appendix B.
In order to implement the transcription of data from past sighting
reports, each succeeding form was put to use as soon as it was develope
and approved. Accordingly, experience was obtained with each form in
relation to past data, an important factor in the improvement o t e qua i y
and completeness of the' later reports included in this study.
5
!+
;
Coding System and W ork Sheet
Th( , reduction of non-numerical data to numerical form is mandatory
^ , ... of data Thus, the selection of the IBM punched-
in the «“«•»»« analysis of data forced the adoption of a master coding
Xn * Since /°wa» Impracticable to transfer detailed data of an exact
nature Irom the questionnaire to the IBM card, an intermediate transfer
form, coordinated with the master code, was necessary.
The master coding plan was evolved during the early stages of the
LT analysis of data, and was reviewed by the panel of consultants
beforTuse. It was recognized that this system of coding would be the
. f th ‘ analysis, that is, the completeness of the facility for trans-
of data ^ could make or break the study. Accordingly, every conceiv-
able factor that might influence the identification of unidentified aerial
' dbiects was included, together with a wide range of variations within each
f cmr The original coding system (with minor corrections) was used
£ * 1 , V the translation of the original data with marked success. A copy
17S system, called CODES, la enclosed as Exhibit B4, Appendix B.
To facilitate to^pr^^satlci^o^th^piinclted-caicd abstract s^nlntei-
5a“t cC roan. ».c.....V to, .a...... » — card,. A
sample is included as Exhibit B5, Appendix B.
A,, a, .be ...
BM7.77.7.“m”c'Si C 'l...fllc.il=o. .1 cum t.ctof a ,.,«irln, more
IBM card system g F ^^rc^sion In addition, the inclusion of
than one ™Jin - to’ the evaluation and bearing of the sun with respect
certain data relating necessary. Finally, a critical examination
to the observer was iodicat , d the nee d for the definition of a __
All these additions have been incorporated in a revised set of CODES
a r ARn BIBLE that are illustrated as Exhibits B6 and B7, Appendix B.
been included in the CODES, CARD BIBLE, or IBM cards.
6
Identification of Working Papers
The actual reduction of data to IBM punched-card form presented a
Droblem of mass transfer of figures by several workers. Recognizing that
an orderly system of relating the original data to the questionnaire the
WORK SHEET, and the IBM card was imperative, a scheme of SERIAL
NUMBERS was developed to answer this need.
The first data consisted of a series of letter-file folders identified by
the year and location of the sighting or sightings they contained. The num-
ber of reports of sightings in a single folder varied from 1 to over 20.
Under these conditions, there was a. great possibility for incorrect tran-
scription of data, duplication of transcription, or misplacement of inter-
mediate forms. Further, it was considered desirable to relate all sightings
of the same object or objects to one. another. The concept of a four-digit
serial number (major), followed by a two-digit subsenal number (minor),
was adequate to fulfill these requirements.
To expedite handling of the data, temporary serial numbers were
assiened until each report had been evaluated and the phenomenon had been
placed in a category of identification. The use of temporary serial num-
bers permitted the consolidation of duplicate reports from apparently
diverse sources, such as a teletype message and an Air Force Form 112.
However, this consolidation was made ONLY when it could be proved con-
clusively that the sources of the two documents were one and the same.
Factors of the observer' s location, date and time of observation, descrip-
tion of the phenomenon, and finally, the name of the observer were con-
sidered. In this manner, the assignment of major serial and minor sub-
serial numbers in continuous series was made only to the reports accepted
for the statistical study. It is believed that the reports accepted represent
unique and unduplicated instances of sightings.
In the establishment of the serial-number system, it was necessary
to define certain terms, so that a standard interpretation could be achieved.
The terms and corresponding definitions were:
OBSERVER - Any witness reporting to a proper authority tr.at
he had seen unidentified aerial objects.
SIGHTING - The report or group of reports of the same
observed phenomenon that remained unidenti-
fied to the observer or observers, at least
until reported.
SINGLE OBSERVATION - A SIGHTING consisting of a sin^e
report from ( 1) one OBSERVER with no knowledge
of additional OBSERVERS of the same phenom-
enon, or (2) a group of witnesses of the same
phenomenon, each cognizant of the others. The
witness who made the report is called a SINGLE
nncTTP VT.R
MULTIPLE
OBSERVATION - A SIGHTING consisting of
several reports from OBSERVERS of the same
phenomenon who were cognizant of each other.
The witnesses who made reports are called
MULTIPLE OBSERVERS.
ALL SIGHTINGS - (1) The group of reports consisting of one
report for each OBSERVER, including both
SINGLE and MULTIPLE OBSERVERS. (2) The
questionnaire, work sheet, and IBM card
representing the report from each OBSERVER -
in other words, the representation of each report
accepted for the statistical study.
UNIT SIGHTINGS - (1) The group of reports consisting of one
report for each SIGHTING, including all the
reports of SINGLE OBSERVATIONS and the one
most representative report from each MULTIPLE
OBSERVATION. (2) The questionnaire, work
sheet, and IBM card representing the report for
each SIGHTING accepted for the statistical study.
A major serial number (four digits) was assigned to each sighting,
segregating the year of occurrence by selection of limits for each year, as
follows:
0001 to 0500 reserved for 1947
0501 to 1000 reserved for 1948
1001 to 1500 reserved for 1949
1^01 to 2000 regervscLfor 1950
2001 to 2500 reserved for 1951
2501 to 4900 reserved for 1952
While this scheme would serve to identify any individual sighting, identifi-
cation of each report and its subsequent forms was necessary. The minor
subserial numbers (two digits) fulfilled this requirement. For all SINGLE
OBSERVATIONS, a major serial number followed by two (2) zeros, for
example, 2759.00, was sufficient identification. For MULTIPLE OBSER-
VATIONS, the major serial number followed by a series of two-digit num-
bers ranging from 00 to 99 was used to identify the individual reports. In
general, the most complete report from the most reliable observer of that
8
MULTIPLE OBSERVATION was Identified with the .00 subserial number.
As an example, a MULTIPLE OBSERVATION consisting of six sighting
reports would have the following serial numbers:
1132. 00 representing the best report and observer
1132.01 representing an additional observer
1132.02 representing an additional observer
1 132.03 representing an additional observer
1132.04 representing an additional observer
1132.05 representing an additional observer
During the course of the transcription of the data to machine card
form, it became obvious that certain reports could have been independent
observations of the same phenomenon. So, if the presentation o
analysis based on one report for each sighting was valid (the concept of
UNIT SIGHTINGS), a presentation of an analysis based on one repor
phenomenon should be valid also. Further, the examination of data
relating to the actual number of phenomena was considered to be the proper
basis for assessing the probability of technological developments outside
the range of present-day scientific knowledge. Therefore, a designation of
OBJECT SIGHTINGS was established, with the following definition.
OBJECT SIGHTING - (1) The group of reports consisting of
one report for each phenomenon. (2) The
questionnaire, work sheet, and IBM card
representing a report for each phenomenon
accepted for the statistical study.
In brief review, ALL SIGHTINGS refer to all reports, UNIT SIGHTINGS
refer to actual sightings, and OBJECT SIGHTINGS refer to the assumed
number of phenomena .
It must be recognized that the process of identifying OBJECT
SIGHTINGS was deductive, while that for UNIT SIGHTINGS was definitive.
A conservative approach was adopted in the determination of OBJECT
SIGHTINGS, using the factors of date and time of observations, 1°“**°"
of observers, duration of observations, and. range, bearing, ,Lrack direc-
tion, and identification of the phenomena. Any error of selection of OBJECT
SIGHTINGS will tend to be in the direction of reducing the actual number of
phenomena observed (several instances of UNIT SIGHTINGS that might be
one OBJECT SIGHTING were noted, but the evidence was not conclus
enough to justify consolidation of the reports).
Following the determination of OBJECT SIGHTINGS, a series of
serial numbers, called the INCIDENT SERIAL NUMBERS, j
to facilitate any future study of a specific object sighting. incident
sighting that relates to an OBJECT SIGHTING received the same 'T'
serial number, a four-digit code paralleling the major serial number
9
For machine manipulation. It was
sample of cards (all reports, of a SIGHTING IDENTIFICATION
eluded in a particular study. . Using one column of the IBM
NUMBER was evolvedjo HUt the code for
developed. Multiple punching of the proper number
selection of the desired sample of cards.
evaluation o' '"dividual Reports
valuation of siting ^
preparation of data for atatiaUcai treatment, ^ ^ ^ ^ A method
have invalidated any conclusions to ^ simultane ously with the develop-
of evaluation was, therefore, system, and the work sheet. It is
ment of the questionnaire, ^'^"1 even includ ing the tediousprep-
emphasized that all phases treatment, were entrusted only
mVeUc^d s P °« r cfany qualified scientists and engineers.
Evaluation consisted of a ^“ch Jo human im-
(1) the deduction of discrete fac s uremen ts (2) the rating of the ob-
pressions rather than information and (3) the
server and his report as identification of the phenomenon observe .
were as follows:
Balloon
Astronomical
Aircraft
Light phenomenon
Birds
Clouds, dust, etc.
insufficient information
Psychological manilestauons
Unknown
Other
The first step in evaluation, the deduct ^ ^ in£ormatlo n
subjective data, required cerla.n calculat finding of the approx.-
available in the sighting report An examp objects sighted,
mate angular velocity and -«I»aUon of the ^ deduc _
Care was taken during this P ha3e ° £ y original data.' Thus, even
tion of discrete facts no ‘ J"”" ^f an y va lid evidence consisting of
though there was a complete lack oi a y
/ 9 I
physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object, this
was not assumed to be prima facie evidence that "flying saucers" did not
exist. ; :}
In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a
factual level failed completely, the report was eliminated from further con-
sideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis. About 800
reports of sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner. Most o
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
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-
formation, considered in relation to one another.
(1) The experience of the observer, deduced from his
occupation, age, and training;
(2) The consistency among the separate portions of the
description of the sighting;
(3) The general quality and completeness of the report;
(4) Consideration of the observer' s fact-reporting ability
and attitude, as disclosed by his manner of describing
the sighting.
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
the statistical study.
The third step in the process of evaluation, the attempted identifica-
tion of the .object or objects sighted, was done twice, first by the individual
who made the transcription of the data (the preliminary identification), and
iaier (the final identification) by a conference of four persons, two,re?re Tv , ^
sentatives from ATIC and two from the panel of consultants. Although
representatives of ATIC participated in making the final identifications, it-
must be emphasized that.any previous identification of a sighting made y
ATIC was not introduced or referred to in any way.
In the coding system, the choices provided for final identifications
were based on ATIC' s previous experience in analysis of the data. They
had found that the majority of sightings could be classified as misinterpre-
tations of common objects or natural phenomena. Accordingly, categories
for objects most frequently present in the air were provided Ba l loons '
aircraft, astronomical bodies (such as meteors), birds, and clou s o
were recognized as major categories. The less frequent, ut c°x r\
objects, such as kites, fireworks, flares, rockets, contrai s, an
.r
11
meteorological phenomena like small tornadoes, were collected into a
meteoroi g H * geP arate category for the uncommon natural
category ca * iatcd ^ uh Ught reflections or refractions, such as mirages,
p enome . ion _ layer images, and distortions caused by airborne ice,
SU ", established with the title of LIGHT PHENOMENON. Categories for
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS, and
Unknown w N ere provided for the sightings that could not be fitted into the
preceding identifications. An explanation of their use follows:
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category
was assigned to a report when, upon final con-
sideration, there was some essential item of
information missing, or there was enough
doubt about what data were available to disallow
identification as a common object or some
natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this
category of identification was not used as a
convenient way to dispose of what might be
called "poor unknowns", but as a category for
reports that, perhaps, could have been one of
several known objects or natural phenomena.
No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMA-
TION contain authenticated facts or impressions
concerning the sighting that would prevent its
being identified as a known object or phenomenon;
PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS - This identification
category was assigned to a report when,
although it was well established that the ob-
server had seen something, it was also
obvious that the description of the sighting
had been overdrawn. Religious fanaticism, a
desire for publicity, or an over-active imagi-
nation were the most common mental aber-
rations causing this type of report;
UNKNOWN - This designation in the identification code was
assigned to those reports of sightings wherein
the description of the object and its maneuvers
could not be fitted to the pattern of any known
object or phenomenon.
For the purposes of this study, two groups of identifications were
recognized, the KNOWNS (including all identification categories except the
UNKNOWNS) and the UNKNOWNS.
•All possible identifications provided in the code system, except
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION and UNKNOWN, could be assigned accord-
ing to two degrees of certainty, designated "Certain" and "Doubtful".
12
See Note at Bottom of Page XM-.
X 1
♦AFR 200-2
1-5
AIR FORCE REGULATION \
NO. 200-2 »
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
‘ WASHINGTON, It AUGUST 1064
INTELLIGENCE
Unidentified Flying Object* Reporting (Short Title: UFOB)
Purpose and Scope-.
Purpose on
Definitions
Objectives —
Paragraph
1
2
. 3
4
Responsibility " " 5
Guidance ""
ZI Collection
Reporting —
Evidence
Release of Facts—
1. Purpose and Scope. This Regulation es-
tablishes procedures for reporting information
and evidence pertaining to unidentified flying
objects and sets forth the responsibility of Air
Force activities in this regard. It applies to all
Air Force activities.
2. Definitions:
a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB ) —
Relates to any airborne object which by perform-
ance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual
features does not conform to any presently known
aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be
positively identified as a familiar object.
b. Familiar Objects — Include balloons, as-
tronomical bodies, birds, and so forth.
3. Objectives. Air Force interest in unidenti-
fied flying objects is twofold: First as a possible
threat to the security of the United States and
its forces, and secondly, to determine technical
aspects involved.
a. Air Defense. To date, the flying objeots
reported have imposed no threat to the security
of the United States and its Possessions. How-
ever, the possibility that new air vehicles, hostile
aircraft or missiles may first be regarded as flying
objects by the initial observer is real. This 1 re-
quires that sightings be reported rapidly and as
completely as information permits
• b. Technical. Analysis thus far has foiled
to provide a satisfactory explanation for a num-
ber of sightings reported. The Air Force will
continue to collect and analyse reports until all
sightings can be satisfactorily explained, bearing
in mind that:
(1) To measure scientific advances, the
Air Force must be informed on experi-
mentation and development of new
air vehicles.
•ThU Regulation •upeMede* AFR 200-2, 26 Auguit
(2) The possibility exists that an air ve-
hicle of revolutionary configuration
may be developed.
(3) The reporting of all pertinent factors
will have a direct bearing on the suc-
cess of the technical analysis.
4. Responsibility:
a. Reporting. Commanders of Air Force
activities will report all information and evidence
that may come to their attention, including that
received from adjacent commands of the other
services and from civilians.
b. Investigation. Air Defense Command
will conduct all field investigations within the
ZI, to determine the identity of any UFOB.
c Analysis. The Air Technical Intelligence
Center (ATIC), Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio, will analyse and evaluate: All in-
formation and evidence reported within the ZI
after the Air Defense Command has exhausted
all efforts to identify the UFOB ; and all informa-
tion and evidence collected in oversea areas.
d Cooperation. All activities will cooperate
with Air Defense Command representatives to
insure the economical and prompt success of an
investigation, including the furnishing of air and
ground transportation, when feasible.
5. Guidance. The thoroughueso and quality
of a report or investigation into incidents of un-
identified flying objects are limited only by the
resourcefulness and imagination of the person
responsible for preparing the report. Guidance
set forth below is based on experience and has
been found helpful in evaluating incidents:
a. Theodolite measurements of changes of
Azimuth and elevation and angular size.
b. Interception, identification, or air search
1953. Including Change 20O-2A, 2 November 1953.
A 2
AFR 200-2
5-7
action. These actions may be taken if appro-
priate and within the scope of existing air defense
regulations.
c Contact with local aircraft control and
warning (AC&W) units, ground observation corps
(GOC) posts and filter centers, pilots and crews
of aircraft aloft at the time and place of sighting
whenever feasible, and any other pe irsons or or-
ganizations which may have factual data bearing
on the UFOB or may be able to offer corroborat-
ing evidence, electronic or otherwise.
d. Consultation with military or civilian
weather forecasters to obtain data on: Tracks
of weather balloons released in the area, since
these often are responsible for sightings; and any
unusual meteorological activity which may have
a bearing on the UFOB.
e. Consultation with astronomers in the area
to determine whether any astronomical body or
phenomenon would account for or have a bearing
on the observation.
f. Contact with military and civilian tower
operators, air operations offices, and so forth, to
determine whether the sighting could be the
result of misidentification of known aircraft.
g. Contact with persons who might have
knowledge of experimental airoraft of unusual
configuration, rocket and guided missile firings,
and so forth, in the area.
6. ZI Collection. The Air Defense Command
has a direct interest in the facta pertaining to
UFOB’s reported within the ZI and has, in the
4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron (AISS) ,
the capability to investigate these reports. The
4602d AISS is composed of specialists trained for
field collection and investigation of matters of
air intelligence interest which occur within the
ZI. This Bquadron is highly mobile and deployed
throughout the ZI as follows: Flights are at-
tached to air defense divisions, detachments are
attached to eaoh of the defense forces, and the
squadron headquarters is located at Peterson
Field, Colorado, adjacent to Headquarters, Air
Defense Command. Air Force activities, there-
fore should establish and maintain liaison with
the nearest element of this squadron. This can
be accomplished by contacting the appropriate
echelon of the Air Defense Command as outlined
above,
a. All Air Force activities are authorized to
conduct such preliminary investigation as may
be required for reporting purposes; however, in-
vestigations should not be carried beyond this
point, unless suoh action is requested by the
4602d AISS.
b. On occasions— after initial reports are
submitted— additional data is required which
can be developed more economically by the
nearest Air Force activity, such as: narrative
statements, sketches, marked maps, charts, and
so forth. Under such circumstances, appropriate
commanders will be contacted by the 4602d AISS.
o. Direct communication between echelons
of the 4602d AISS and Air Force activities is
authorized.
7. Reporting. All information relating to
UFOB’s will be reported promptly. The method
(electrical or written) and priority of dispatch
will be selected in accordance with the apparent
intelligence value of the information. In most
instances, reports will be made by electrical
means: Information over 24 hours old will be
given a “deferred” precedence. Reports over 3
days old will be made by written report prepared
on AF Form 112, Air Intelligence Information
Report, and AF Form 112a, Supplement to AF
Form 112.
a. Addressees:
(1) Electrical Reports. All electrical re-
ports will be multiple addressed to:
(a) Commander, Air Defense Com-
mand, Ent Air Force Base, Colo-
rado Springs, Colorado.
(b) Nearest Air Division (Defense).
(For ZI only.)
(o) Commander, Air Technical Intelli-
gence Center, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio.
(d) Director of Intelligence, Headquar-
ters USAF, Washington 25, D. C.
(2) Written Reports:
(a) Within the ZI, reports will be sub-
mitted direct to the Air Defense
Command. Air Defense Command
will reproduce the report and dis-
tribute it to interested ZI intelli-
gence agencies. The original report
together with notation of the dis-
tribution effected then will be for-
warded to the Director of Intelli-
gence, Headquarters USAF, Wash-
* ~ lngton 25, D. G. -
(b) Outside the ZI, reports will be sub-
mitted direct to Director of Intelli-
gence, Headquarters USAF, Wash-
ington 25, D. C. as prescribed in
'Intelligence Collection Instruc-
tions” (ICI) , June 1954.
b. Short Title. “UFOB” will appear at the
beginning of the text of electrical messages and
in the subject of written reports.
c. Negative Data. The word “negative”
2
AFR 200-2
7-8
in reply to arty numbered item of the report
format will indicate that all logical leads were
developed without success. The phrase “not
applicable" (N/A) will indicate that the question
does not apply to the sighting being investigated.
d. Report Format. Reports will include the
following numbered items:
(1) Description of the objcct(s):
(a) Shape.
(b) Size compared to a known object
(ubo one of the following terms:
Head of a pin, pea, dime, nickel,
quarter, half dollar, silver dollar,
baseball, grapefruit, or basketball)
held in the hand at about arms
length.
(0) Color.
(d) Number.
(e) Formation, if more than one.
(f) Any discernible features or details.
(g) Tail, trail, or exhaust, including
size of same compared to size of
object(s).
(h) Sound. If heard, describe sound.
(1) Other pertinent or unusual features.
(2) Description of course of object(s):
(a) What first called the attention of
obBerver(s) to the object(s)?
(b) Angle of elevation and azimuth of
the object(s) when first observed.
(c) Angle of elevation and azimuth of
object(s) upon disappearance.
(d) Description of flight path and
maneuvers of object (s).
(e) Manner of disappearance of ob-
jeot(s).
(f) Length of time in sight.
(3) Manner of observation:
(a) Use one or any combination of the
following items: Ground-visual,
ground-electronio, air-eleotronio.
(If electronic, specify type of
radar.)
(b) Slaicmtai a& to upUva! aids (tete-
scopes, binoculars, and so forth)
UBed and description thereof.
(c) If the' sighting iB made while air-
borne, give type aircraft, identifi-
cation number, altitude, heading,
speed, and home station.
(4) Time and date of sighting:
(a) Zulu time-date group of sighting.
(b) Light conditions (use one of the
following terms) : Night, day,
dawn, dusk.
(5) Locations of observer^). Exact lati-
tude and longitude of each observer,
or Georef position, or position with
reference to a known landmark.
(6) Identifying information of all ob-
server (s):
(a) Civilian — Name, age, mailing ad-
dress, occupation.
(b) Military — Name, grade, organiza-
tion, duty, and estimate of reli-
ability.
(7) Weather and winds-aloft conditions
at time and place of sightings:
(a) Observer (8) account of weather
conditions.
(b) Report from nearest AWS or U. S.
Weather Bureau Office of wind
direction and velocity in degrees
and knots at surface, 6,000', 10,000',
16,000', 20,000', 30,000', 60, 000',
and 80,000', if available.
(c) Ceiling.
(d) Visibility.
(e) Amount of cloud cover.
(f) Thunderstorms in area and quad-
rant in which located.
(8) Any other unusual activity or condi-
tion, meteorological, astronomical, or
otherwise, which might account for
the sighting.
(9) Interception or identification action
taken (such action may be taken
whenever feasible, complying with
existing air defense directives).
(10) Location of any air traffic in the area
at time of sighting.
(11) Position title and comments of the
preparing officer, including his pre-
liminary analysis of the possible cause
of the sighting (s).
(12) Existence of physical evidence, suoh
as materials and photographs.
e. Security. Reports should be unclassified
unless inclusion of data required by d above
necessitates a highci 8iassiiic«ticn.
8. Evidence. The existence of physical evi-
dence (photographs or materiel) will be promptly
reported.
a. Photographic:
(1) Visual. The negative and two prints
will be forwarded, all original film,
including wherever possible both
prints and negatives, will be titled or
otherwise properly identified as to
place, time, and date of the incident
3
AFR 200-2
8-9
X 4
(see “Intelligence Collection Instruc-
tions” (ICI) , June 1954).
121 Radar. Two copies of each print will
be forwarded. Prints of radarscope
photography will be titled in accord-
ance with AFR 95-7 and forwarded
in compliance with AFR 95-0.
b Materiel Suspected or actual items of
materiel which come into possession of any Air
Force echelon will be safeguarded in such man-
ner as to prevent any defacing or alteration
which might reduce its value for intelligence
9. Release of Facts. Headquarters TJSAF will
release summaries of evaluated data which will
inform the public on this subjeot. In response
to local inquiries, it is permissible to inform news
media representatives on UFOB’s when the
object is positively identified as a familiar object
(see paragraph 2b), except that the following
type of data warrants protection and should not
bo revealed: Names of principles, intercept and
investigation procedures, and classified radar
data. For those objects which are not ex-
plainable, only the fact that ATIC will analyze
the data is worthly of release, due to the many
unknowns involved.
By Ordeb op the Secretary op the Am Force:
Oppicial:
K. E. THIEBAUD
Colonel, USAF
Air Adjutant General
N. F. TWINING
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force
DISTRIBUTION:
g.
ONI, Department of the Navy 200
G-2, Department of the Army 10
This document (AFR has been reproduo^as
^Laaysls
of the Air Force Project
No. 1A". Single copies of this AFR 200- si may do
file of charge, by writing to the pub-
liahor at the address shown on the back cover of
the Third Edition of that book, enclosing a long
I** ^rat-class ^
postage. Give your ZIP-Code.
4
& •. f. 40 TIIRMKIT rilllKI •»«**■
2 .
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 flight plans of aircraft, records of balloon releases, 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 ATIC 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, ff that person arrive ^ 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
considered later by everyone participating in the conference un 1
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 “
nuired on that report before it was considered finished. A group
was necessary on all reports finally recorded as UNKNOWN, regardless of
what the preliminary identification had been. In cases '" heraa 8 rou P
decision was not made within a reasonable time, the -Port was put aside
and later submitted to certain members of the panel of c ° naulta "‘“ f .° r
opinions. If, after this, disagreement continued to exist, the report of the
sighting was identified as UNKNOWN.
13
Upon completion of final identifications, all data were transferred to
IBM cards, preparatory to analysis.
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Broadly stated, the problem at this point consisted of the judicious
application of scientific methods of categorizing and analyzing the sub-
jective data in reports of sightings of unidentified aerial objects. It was
recognized that an approach to this problem could best be made by a sys-
tematic sorting and tabulation program to give frequency and percentage
distributions of the important characteristics of sightings. A suggestion
that an attempt be made to anticipate all questions that might be asked in
the future about a sighting or a group of sightings, and to provide answers,
was rejected. The systematic approach also made it possible to develop
a detailed reference manual of the attributes of the sightings included in
this study.
Thus, at the beginning of the analysis, a detailed plan was developed
for sorting, counting, and tabulating the information from the punched-card
abstracts of reports of sightings. It was believed at the time, and later
substantiated, that the results of the program for sorting .and tabulating
would serve as a guide for the more sophisticated treatment involving
statistical methods.
Also, it was anticipated that any patterns or trends that might be
found could be subjected to concentrated study in the hope of discovering
significant information relating to the characteristics of -flying saucers
Further, it was believed that these trends could serve as certain of the
criteria of validity for any concepts (models) developed in the attempt to
discover d class of "flying saucers".
The three parts of this study (1) the sorting and tabulation program,
(2) the advanced study of the results of that program, and (3) the investiga-
tion of the oossibility of conceiving a model of a "flying saucer" from
descriptions reported, are discussed in sections entitled ri cquency and
Percentage Distributions by Characteristics", "Advanced Study of the Data ,
and "The * Flying Saucer* Model".
Frequency and Percentage Distributions b y Characteristics
The original conception of this study assumed the availability of
sufficient data to describe adequately the physical appearance, maneuver
characteristics, range, direction, and probable path of the object or
objects observed. However, familiarity with the data, acquired during the
14
2 _
translation and transcription from reports to punched cards, indicated that
there would be relatively few specific variables or factors that would yield
meaningful correlation studies. Either the original data were too subjec-
tive, or the incompleteness of the original reports would .seriously reduce
the sample of a specific variable.
Preliminary tabulations of various sortings substantiated the im-
possibility of deriving statistical results from certain variables, such as
movement of the observer during the sighting, sound, shape parameter,
size, angular velocity and acceleration, appearance and disappearance
bearing, initial and final elevation, altitude, and orientation of the object.
The statistically usable variables presented in this study include the date,
time, location, duration, reliability, and method of observation of the
sighting, and the physical attributes of number, color, speed, shape, light
brightness, and identification of the objects sighted.
The presentation of frequency and percentage distributions of any of
the variables must be interpreted in the light of the sample of incidents
represented. For example, the analysis of the reported colors of the
objects sighted, based on ALL SIGHTINGS, could lead to misrepresenta-
tion of the distribution of the reported color of the objects, because of the
multiplicity of reports on some of the phenomena. On the other hand, the
percentage distribution of the light brightness reported by each observer
is more likely to be correct than a distribution based on one report for
each phenomenon. To assure that the most nearly correct presentation
was made, and t^ avoid the possibility of failure to uncover any pattern or
trend inherent in the data, the variables were studied on five different
bases or samples. These samples, and their numerical relation to each
other, were as follows:
The preliminary tabulations indicated that the samples* based ovi UNIT
SIGHTINGS, single observer, and UNIT SIGHTINGS, multiple observers,
would not add materially to this study. Accordingly, although the fre-
quency distributions were recorded and are available for study, they are
not presented in this report.
The bases of ALL SIGHTINGS, UNIT SIGHTINGS (referring to all
observers), and OBJECT SIGHTINGS are presented in Appendix A as
Tables A1 through A240. A critical study of these tabulations reveals that
there is no apparent change in the distribution of any variable from one
basis to another, and that no marked patterns or trends exist in any sample.
ALL SIGHTINGS (all reports) —
UNIT SIGHTINGS, all observers t-
UNIT SIGHTINGS, single observer —
UNIT SIGHTINGS, multiple observers —
OBJECT SIGHTINGS -
3, 201 cards
2, 554 cards
2, 232 cards
322 cards
2, 199 cards
15
Z4
Graphical Presentation
Graphical representation of the important information contained in
the tables is presented in Figures 1 through 38. These figures present the
distributions of the important variables only by the total number of cases
in each identification category, since no significant differences were found
between the distributions of "Certain" and "Doubtful" identifications of
objects with respect to the variables. A chronological study of these
figures will afford a broad picture of the tabulated information, without the
necessity of a detailed study of the tables.
A critical examination of the figures will show that no trends, patterns,
or correlations are to be found, with the exception of Figures 18 through 30.
The apparent similarity of the distributions shown by these mirror graphs,
Figures 18 through 23, was tested by statistical methods which showed that
there was a low probability that the distributions of the KNOWNS and
UNKNOWNS by these characteristics were the same. These tests and their
interpretation are discussed in the following section. For purposes of this
study, the strategic areas, shown in Figures 32 through 38, and Tables
A223 through A240, Appendix A, were designated on the basis of concen-
tration of reports of OBJECT SIGHTINGS in an area. No other interpre-
tation of the tables or remaining charts was deemed necessary.
Advanced Study of the Data
It was recognized that the lack of any patterns or trends, as shown by
the tabulations and graphs, provided an insecure basis for drawing definite
conclusions. Accordingly, shortly before the sorting and tabulation pro-
gram was concluded, a program of study of the data was developed to
utilize statistical and other mathematical methods, which could lead to a
more concrete interpretation of the problem.
Position of the Sun Relative to the Observer
T.he first thing that was done was to calculate the angle of elevation of ,,
the sun above the horizon and its bearing from true north as seen by the
observer at the time of each sighting. With this information, it could then
be determined whether there was a possibility that the reported object
could have been illuminated by light from the sun. In addition, it could be
determined whether an object could be a mock sun (sun dog) or whether
there was a possibility of specular reflection from an aircraft at the posi-
tion of the object, which would give the appearance of a "flying disc".
A program of computation was set up and carried out to obtain the
angle of elevation and the bearing of the sun for each sighting. All informa-
tion needed for this calculation was available on the deck of IBM cards.
16
2^
^ 8 8 8 § §"
• 6«UM6|S *3*(«»0 »o
23
FIGURE 7 FREQUENCY OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS AND UNKNOWN OBJECT EVALUATIONS BY MONTHS,
1947-1952 e * 74M
2.6
irs'.v YORK OFFICE OF IKFORlfATJj
PnMlo Irformation Dlvislo/ti
nff Ue, Socr^iar^ of tho /lr For.oa
,-n J/'OE, 110 E. 4 5 til St— 1 - fc
i?t.v Y-> U 17, Hex Yet* /
t
/ \36
/
/
piniRF B DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SIGHTING
FIGURE 8 £' e S l ™^ |TY 6R0Ups w , th EVALUATION DISTRIBUTIONS
FOR EACH GROUP *-t4B8
24
27
X \ \
Not
stated
24.9%
Over 30 mini
7.8 %
6-30 min
17.1%
61 sec-
5 min
16.7%
o
Q)
S a
j.«£
5—
1 1-30 sec
8.5 %
6-10 sec"
I %_
5 sec or
less
13.0 %
1 T”
—r
1
n t
i i i i ^
o o o o o
JU9Q J9d
29
FIGURE 13 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY DURATION OF SIGHTING WITH EVALUATION
DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH DURATION GROUP A . 74t ,
20 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SPEED, 1947-1952
FIGURE 21 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY DURATION , 1947-1952
A- 74 9*
E
o
c
a> o
Ow
3
in
c.
<L>
CL
O
K>
nHDQO
43
FIGURE 27 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS INSUFFI-
•Or-
eo -
FIGURE 30 CHARACTERISTICS PROFILES OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY
TOTAL SAMPL.E, KNOWN EVALUATIONS, AND INDIVIDUAL KNOWN
EVALUATIONS, WITH UNKNOWN EVALUATIONS SUPERIMPOSED
B-7aoe
46
3
This information consisted of:
(1) Time and date of observation in Greenwich Civil Time
(2) Latitude and longitude of the observer at the time of
observation.
Figure 39 shows a celestial sphere on which represents the ob-
server' s zenith, £ represents the sun, and N represents the north celestial
pole.
Using the date and time of the observation, the longitude and declina-
tion (S) of the sun were obtained from an ephemeris of the sun and corrected
for the equation of time. The difference between the longitudes of the sun
and the observer was taken, and called the hour angle (HA on FiguYe 39).
Then, using the declination of the sun (S), the latitude of the observer
(lat), and the hour angle ( HA) , the angle ( ZS) between the observer' s zenith
and the sun can be calculated from the law of cosines of spherical trigo-
nometry. Thus, cos TS = cos (90 - lat) cos (90 - S) + sin (90 - lat) sin
(90 - S) cos (HA).
Since the angle ZS is measured from the observer's zenith, the angle
of elevation of the sun above the horizon for daytime sightings was found by
taking 90 - ZS. When the sun was below the horizon, the angle of depres-
sion of the sun below the horizon was found by taking ZS - 90.
Having found the angle ZS , the bearing of the sun (angle B) was ob-
tained from the formula:
sin (B) _ sin (HA)
sin (90 - S) sin (ZS)
All of the above calculations were made with IBM equipment. Sines,
cosines, and their inverses were obtained from a deck of 9, 000 IBM cards
on which seven-place Peter^s tables of the sines, cosines, and tangents of
angles had been punched for each 0.01 of a degree from 0 to 90 degrees.
Upon completion of these calculations, the cards representing OBJECT
SIGHTINGS were sorted on the sign of the sine of the bearing angle. This
separated the cards into two groups: (1) sightings which occurred between
noon and midnight, for which the sine of the bearing angle was positive; and
(2) sightings between midnight and noon, for which the sine of the bearing
angle was negative. Then each of these groups was sorted into groups for
intervals of 10* in angle of elevation of the sun from -90° to +90°. A count
was made of the number of cards in each group and from this a histogram
was constructed (Figure 40). The UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS were
then sorted out, counted in the same manner, and a histogram was made
(again see Figure 40).
55
FIGURE 39 DIAGRAM OF A CELESTIAL SPHERE
A* 75 9 8
Horizon
56
2
The following points should be carefully noted about these histograms:
(1) The negligible number of sightings when the sun is within
10* of the zenith and nadir (angle of elevation of the sun =
±90°) of the observer is due to the fact that the southern-
most latitude of the U. S. is greater than the declinati.on
of the sun at the summer solstice, so that it would be im-
possible for the sun to reach the zenith or nadir of any
observer in the U. S. (where most of the sightings were
made).
(2) The time of day at which a particular angle of elevation
of the sun occurs does not remain fixed but varies from
day to day. Consider, for example, the variation in
sunrise and sunset times over the course of a year.
Thus, there are only two inferences to be made from this histogram:
(1) the high peak of sightings soon after sunset, and (2) the lack of increase
in the UNKNOWNS relative to the KNOWNS near either sunset or sunrise.
This would seem to discount the possibility that atmospheric phenomena
such as mock suns were the primary cause of the unknown reports, since
such phenomena usually occur when the sun is near the horizon.
The Local Sun Time was computed as a step in the calculation of the
angle of elevation of the sun. It is related to the hour angle by the equation:
Local Sun Time (L. S. T. ) = HA/15 + 12. 00, where L.S.T. is in hours and
HA in degrees. •
The cards wfere grouped on the basis of L.S.T. in intervals of one
hour, and the number of cards in each interval was counted. Again the
UNKNOWNS were sorted out and similarly treated. Histograms were con-
structed with the results of these tabulations of OBJECT SIGHTINGS
(Figure 41). Here, again, there is a peak in the early evening hours.
The cards were then broken up into seven groups on the basis of the
angle of elevation of the sun, as follows:
Group 1 — Daylight sightings for which the sun was more than
10* above the horizon.
Group 2 - Sunset sightings for which the sun was between 0*
and 10* above the horizon.
Group 3 — Sunset sightings for which the sun was between 0*
and 10* below the horizon.
Group 4 — Evening sightings for which the sun was between
10* and 40* below the horizon.
58
s6uim&is joafqo J° jac l Ujn N
59
Group 5 - Night sightings for which the sun was more than 10*
below the horizon and which were not included in
Group 4,
Group 6 - Sunrise sightings for which the sun was between 0"
and 10* below the horizon.
Group 7 - Sunrise sightings for which the sun was between 0*
and 10° above the horizon.
These group numbers were punched on the cards and incorporated
into the coding system. The number of OBJECT SIGHTINGS in each group
for each identification was then tabulated and is given in Table I.
TABLE I OBJECT SIGHTINGS
Identification
Angle
of Elevation Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Balloon
156
17
28
83
40
0
2
Astronomical
52
6
43
236
118
9
6
Aircraft
187
23
49
144
60
5
2
Light phenomena
8
2
4
25
7
0
0
Insufficient information
72
12
26
76
28
2
0
UNKNOWN
134
14
25
150
86
6
7
Other
64
8
12
50
36
_3_
7
Total
673
82
187
764
375
25
24
According to this table, a large majority of the KNOWN OBJECT
SIGHTINGS in Group 1 (343 out of 467) were either aircraft or balloons. In
Groups 4 and 5 combined, a large majority (681 out of 899) were either
balloons, aircraft, or astronomical. Accordingly, a re-evaluation of the
UNKNOWNS in these three groups was planned with the objective of deter-
mining which of the UNKNOWNS in Group 1 might possibly be airtrait or
balloons and which of the UNKNOWNS in Groups 4 and 5 might possibly be
balloons, aircraft, or astronomical objects. More will be said of this
project later.
Statistical Chi Square Test
In the meantime, mirror graphs had been constructed from the fre-
quency tabulations which seemed to show that, when the KNOWNS (total less
UNKNOWNS) and the UNKNOWNS were grouped according to one of six
characteristics, the percentage of KNOWNS and the percentage of
60
UNKNOWNS in each characteristic group showed the same general trend.
In other words, on the basis of these graphs, it looked as though there was
a good possibility that the UNKNOWNS were no different from the KNOWNS,
at least in the aggregate. It was decided to investigate this by the use of a
statistical procedure called the "Chi Square Test".
The Chi Square Test is a statistical test of the likelihood that two
distributions come from the same population, that is, it gives the proba-
bility that there is no difference in the make-up of the two distributions
being measured.
The method is outlined as follows:
(1) Adjust the distributions by multiplying the KNOWNS in each
characteristic group by the ratio of the total number of
UNKNOWNS to the total number of KNOWNS. (The Chi
Square Test is applicable only to distributions which have
the same total number of elements.)
(2) Take the difference between the number of UNKNOWNS and
the adjusted number of KNOWNS in each characteristic
group.
(3) Square the remainder from Step 2.
(4) Divide the result of Step 3 by the corresponding number of
adjusted KNOWNS.
This is the chi square for the particular group. Summing the indi-
vidual chi squares over the groups of a characteristic gives the chi square
for that characteristic. This number is then compared with a table of the
distribution of chi square which can be found in many texts on elementary
statistics.
It will be noted that chi square is tabulated in terms of degrees of
freedom which in this case is one less than the number of groups of sight-
ings for each characteristic.
The tabulations of KNOWNS and UNKNOWNS against the six char-
acteristics and the Chi Square Test as it was applied are shown in Tables
II through VII. In each case, the number of degrees of freedom is given,
as is the value of chi squares corresponding to probabilities of 5 per cent
and 1 per cent that two distributions with this number of degrees of freedom
come from the same population. Since the greater the value of chi square
the smaller the probability of homogeneity of two distributions, a calculated
value of chi square greater than either the 5 per cent or 1 per cent values
will indicate a probability less than 5 per cent or 1 per cent, respectively,
that the two distributions are homogeneous. The term homogeneity is used
here to indicate that two distributions could have come from the same
population.
: a.£
J
61
In five of the six cases, the probability is less than 1 per cent that
the distributions are the same. In the sixth case, Light Brightness, the
classifications are too nebulous to be of real value. However, these tests
do not necessarily mean that the UNKNOWNS are primarily "flying saucers"
and not aircraft, balloons, or other known objects or natural phenomena.
The UNKNOWNS might still be unidentified KNOWNS if either of the follow-
ing cases occurred:
(1) The characteristics which were observed for the UNKNOWNS
were different from those observed for the KNOWNS because
of the psychological make-up of the observer or because of
atmospheric distortion. This assumes the distribution of
objects in KNOWNS and UNKNOWNS is the same.
(2) The UNKNOWNS may be known objects in different propor-
tions than the group identified as KNOWNS. (That is, a
greater percentage of the UNKNOWNS could be aircraft
than the percentage of aircraft in the identified KNOWNS.)
The second case is the more probable one. In this connection, it is
interesting to note the factors which contributed to a large chi square
result in the tests made above:
(1) Color
The major contribution to chi square in color is from the
color green. There is a large excess of green sightings
among the KNOWNS over the UNKNOWNS. Of the 130
known objects in this classification, 98 are astronomical,
and are due mostly to the green fireballs reported frorti
the Southwest U. S.
(2) Number
The large chi square is due to a greater proportion of
UNKNOWNS in the multiple object classification. Apparently
these are harder to identify.
(3) Shape
In this case, there is a higher percentage of UNKNOWNS
in the rocket-aircraft-shape classification. These might
be familiar objects for which unusual maneuvers were
reported.
There is a higher percentage of KNOWNS in the flame
and in the meteor- or comet-shape category, which in
both cases appears to result mainly from excesses of
astronomical sightings.
68
¥ 3
(4) Duration of observation
Here there is an excess of KNOWNS in the less-than-
5-second group. Again, the majority of KNOWNS in
this group are astronomical. The greater proportion
of UNKNOWNS in the 31- to 60-second and 61^-second
to 5-minute groups cannot be explained.
(5) Speed
The major contribution to chi square for this char-
acteristic is due to a large excess of UNKNOWNS in
the over 400-mph class. It can be assumed that some
of the excessive speeds are inaccuracies in estimates
by observers. However, some radar sightings, which
are practically impossible to identify, show objects
with speeds of*l, 000 to Z, 000 mph and over, and these
reports account for a number of these UNKNOWNS.
(6) Light brightness
Since this chi square was not significant, it is not
necessary to discuss it here.
An examination of these discrepancies thus brings up a very interest-
ing point. In every case for which there is a significant excess of KNOWNS
over UNKNOWNS, the excess can be attributed to an excess of identifiable
astronomical phenomena. This would seem to lead to the conclusion that
astronomical phenomena are easy to identify and there are very few left in
the UNKNOWNS. Accordingly, the astronomical object sightings were
deleted from the KNOWN object sightings and the Chi Square Test was again
applied. The results are shown in Tables VIII through Xlil, where in this
case the KNOWNS do not contain astronomical sightings.
It will be noted that some groups were combined when the adjusted
number of KNOWNS was ten or less, except for the case for which the
number of' objects per sighting was the characteristic studied. These were
borderline cases, and no good combination of groups existed.
It is apparent that the deletion of astronomical sightings gives a better
fit, although the decision is not clear cut, since for two cases (light bright-
ness and speed), the chi square increased. However, it can again be pointed
out that the reporting of these two characteristics is highly subjective and is
open to question. The estimation of speed is especially open to question
because of the impossibility of accurately determining it visually.
! •;
: k
!
I I*
• 1
I
It
69
Another interesting aspect of these new tests is that there are only
two large discrepancies in all of the groups. These are for the 11 or more
groups in the classification by number of objects per sighting and for the
over-400-mph and meteor-like group for the classification by speed. The
first was relatively unchanged by deletion of the astronomical sightings
principally because of the concentration of sightings in the single-object
category. The second was slightly increased by the removal of the astro-
nomical sightings from the meteor-like classification. However, the main
discrepancy, that of the excess of UNKNOWNS in the over-400-mph class,
was little changed.
The results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm
nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, although
they do indicate that relatively few of the UNKNOWNS are actually astro-
nomical phenomena.
It was decided that this process would not be carried to its logical
conclusion (that is, the determination of a linear combination of KNOWNS
that would give a negligible chi square when compared with the UNKNOWNS),
since it was felt that the inaccuracies in the reports would give a distorted
and meaningless result.
i b
Number of
Adjusted
X2 ,
Number of
Number of
(K-n) 2
Color
KNOWNS
KNOWNS (K)
UNKNOWNS (n)
K
White
405
100
112
1. 44
Metallic
313
77
76
0. 01
Not stated
209
51
62
2. 37
Orange
172
42
49
1. 17
Red
146
36
33
0. 25
Yellow
128
31
31
0
Green
130
32
14
10. 13
Blue
67
17
26
4. 76
Other
195
48
31
6. 02
Total
1765
434
434
26. IS j|ij|
Degrees of freedom
8 |
5*
15.5
1%
201 ;||
TABLE III CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS
1
UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER
ill
Number of
Adjusted
X 2 ,
Objects Per
Number of
Number of
Number of
(K-n)2
Sighting
KNOWNS
KNOWNS (K)
UNKNOWNS (n)
K
,
1339
, 329
297
.3.11 I
0. 10
2
159
39
37
3-10
185
46
70
12. 52
1 1 or more
41
10
25
22. 50
Not stated
41
10
5
2.50 ! i;
Total
1765
434
434
40.73
Degrees of freedom
i i ,;:
4
5%
• 1
9. 5
1%
13. 3
I
Shape
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
X*.
(K-n) Z
K
Elliptical
838
206
195
0. 59
Rocket and aircraft
80
20
33
8.45
Meteor or comet
55
14
4
7. 14
Teardrop, lenticular,
103
25
22
0. 36
or conical
Flame
96
24
10
8. 17
Other
193
47
54
1.04
Not stated
400
98
116
3.30
Total
1765
434
434
29.05
Degrees of freedom
6
5%
12.6
1%
16.8
TABLE V
CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS
ON THE BASIS OF DURATION OF OBSERVATION
Duration of
Observation
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
XZ, 2
(K-n) z
K
5 Bee or less
259
64
27
21. 39
6-10 sec
92
23
21
0. 17
11-30 sec
153
38
33
0. 66
31-60 sec
108
26
42
9.85
61 see- 5 min
269-
6.6
~ — 99L
16. 50
6-30 min
305
75
71
0. 21
Over 30 min
135
33
37
0. 48
Not stated
444
109
104
0. 23
Total
1765
434
434
49. 49
Degrees of freedom
7
5%
14. 1
1%
18.5
64
65
V6 1
TABLE VI CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWN5 VERSUS
UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF SPEED
Speed
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
v2
(K-nlf
K
Stationary
249
61
53
1.05
Less than 100 mph
154
38
26
3. 79
3.76
100 to 400 mph
181
45
58
Over 400 mph
403
99
145
16
21. 37
0.80
7.16 \
Meteor-like
83
20
Not stated
695
m
136
Total
1765
434
434
37.93
Degrees of freedom
TABLE VII CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS
ON THE BASIS OF LIGHT BRIGHTNESS
Light Brightness
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
X ’2
K
Sunlight on mirror
47
11
14
0.82
Sunlight on aluminum
151
37
28
2. 19
Sunlight on plaster,
76
19
16
0. 47
stone, or soil
Brighter than moon
273
67
61
0. 55
Like moon or duller
68
17
22
1.47
than moon
Not stated
1150
283
293
0. 35
—
—
—
■
Total
1765
434
434
5.85
Degrees of freedom
5
5%
U. 1
1%
15. 1
66 67
I
TABLE VIII CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS
UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF COLOR
Color
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
X 2 ,
(K-n) 2
K
White
281
95
112
3. 04
Metallic
298
101
76
6. 19
Not stated
189
64
62
0. 06
Orange
117
39
49
2. 56
Red
92
31
33
0. 13
Yellow
90
30
31
0.03
Green
32
11
14
0. 82
Blue
29
10
261
0.57
Other
158
53
J±>
Total
1286
434
434
13.40
Degrees of freedom
7
5%
14. 1
1%
18. 5
TABLE IX CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS
UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER
Number of
Objects Per
Sighting
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
A »
(K-n) 2
K
\ .
913
308
297
0.39
2
142
48
37
2.52
3-10
168
57
70
2.96
1 1 or more
34
11
25
15.36
Not stated
29
10
5
2.50
Total
1286
434
434
23.73
Degrees of freedom
4
5%
9. 5
1%
13.3
71
1
70
TABLE X CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS
UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF SHAPE
Shape
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
* 2 *2
(K-n) Z
K
Elliptical
632
213
195
1.52
Rocket or aircraft
72
24
33
3. 37
Meteor or comet
9
3
1.32
Flftme
47
16
10 |
Teardrop, lenticular,
79
27
22
0.93
or cbnical
Othc r
151
51
54
1.76
Not stated
296
100
116
2.56
-
—
■
■■
Total
1286
434
434
11.46
Degrees of freedom
5
5%
11. 1
1%
15. 1
TABLE XI CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS
ON THE BASIS OF DURATION OF OBSERVATION
Adjusted
X‘,
Duration of
Number of
Number of
Number of
(K-n) 2
Observation
KNOWNS
KNOWNS (K)
UNKNOWNS (n)
K
5 sec or less
92
31
27
0. 52
6-10 sec
47
16
21
1. 56
11-30 sec
118
40
33
1.23
31-60 sec
92
31
42
3.90
61 sec-5 min
252
85
99
2.31
6 min- 30 min
259
87
71
2.94
Over 30 min
91
31
37
l. 16
Not stated
335
113
104
0.72
i ■
— — •
—
—
Total
1286
434
434
14. 34
Degrees of freedom '
5% 14. I
1 % 18.5
73
72
TABLE XU
CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS
UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF SPEED
Speed
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
X 2 .
K
j:
|j
Stationary
196
66
53
2. 56
"| 1
Less than 100 mph
128
43
26
6. 72
i| = .
100 to 400 mph
156
53
58
0.47
Over 400 mph
291
98
145
28. 54
Meteor-like
24
8
16 [
Not stated
491
166
136
5.42
y
Total
1286
434
434
43.71
■HI
Degrees of ireedom
5%
1 %
9.5
13. 3
1
TABLE XIII CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS
UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF LIGHT BRIGHTNESS
M
Light Brightness
Number of
KNOWNS
Adjusted
Number of
KNOWNS (K)
Number of
UNKNOWNS (n)
X 2 ,,
(«-?)-
K
Sunlight on mirror
24
8
.2.67
Sunlight on aluminum
136
46
28 I
Sunlight on plaster,
63
21
16
1. 19
stone, or soil
Brighter than moon
143
48
61
3 - ** . u
Like moon or duller
42
15
22
3. 27
than moon
Not stated
878
296
293
0. 03
■ * j j .
Total
1286
434
434
10. 68
Degrees of freedom
4
74
wm?- -
5^0
The "Flying Saucer 11 Model
The importance of the problem dictated a second approach, should the
statistical results prove inconclusive. It was decided that an attempt
would be made to describe the physical appearance, flight characteristics,
and other attributes (that is, construct a model) of a class or classes of
"flying saucers".
Preparatory to this attempt, a re-evaluation of the UNKNOWNS was
necessary. This re-evaluation was accomplished by a panel composed only
of persons previously associated with the work. Using all the UNKNOWNS
reports available at ATIC, the panel made a careful study of the reports for
the UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS in angle-of-sun-elevation Groups 1, 2, 3, 6, and
7 — those groups for which the sun was either above the horizon or less than
10° in elevation below the horizon.
This study had two purposes. The first was to determine, with
additional information such as the angle of elevation of the sun, how many
of the UNKNOWNS might be ascribed to known phenomena. The second was
to obtain those UNKNOWNS which were described in sufficient detail that
they might be used to construct a model or models of "flying saucers".
It was decided to put any of the UNKNOWNS which might be known
phenomena into a "possible KNOWN" category to denote the slightly lower
confidence level which could be ascribed to these new evaluations. The
76
5 "
UNKNOWNS with sufficiently detailed description would be called "good
UNKNOWNS", while the remainder would simply be called UNKNOWNS.
One hundred sixty-four folders of a total of 186 OBJECT SIGHTINGS in
Groups 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 were examined. There were 18 possible aircraft,
20 possible balloons, 7 good UNKNOWNS, 100. UNKNOWNS, and 19 others
which were identified as being possible KNOWNS of various types. It is
interesting to note that two of these were established as mock suns on the
basis of the angle of sun elevation and the sun bearing angle, together with
the direction of the object from the observer. In addition, the UNKNOWNS
in angle-of-sun-elevation Groups 4 and 5 (nighttime sightings) were scanned
with no attempt at identification, but to find any possible "good UNKNOWNS"
There were five sightings that could be put into this category.
Of the UNKNOWNS, there were approximately 20 sightings that were
observed in such a way that they should have been recognized easily if they
had been familiar objects, that is, there was little possibility that their
shapes, as seen, could have been distorted sufficiently by one cause or
another to render them unrecognizable. There were a very few that would
have been identified as guided missiles or rockets, but that were not so
identified because of the geographical location in which they were seen.
All of the remaining UNKNOWNS were classified as such solely be-
cause they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be
ascribed to any known objects. In these cases, the shape might have been
unrecognizable also, but it was felt that this was because of distortion and
distance, or because of darkness.
This is a very important point. . To put it differently, if these
UNKNOWNS, which represent all but about 40 of the UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS,
were reported to have performed maneuvers which could be ascribed to
known phenomena, they would probably have been identified as KNOWNS.
With the exception of some radar sightings, all of these maneuvers were
observed visually. The possibilities for inaccuracies are great because
of the inability of an observer to estimate visually size, distance, and
speed.
Reports of sightings by radar usually were of high-speed objects,
some at extremely high altitudes. Some were identified as UNKNOWNS
because there was no object to be seen visually at the point indicated by the
radar set. It cannot be said with any assurance what these radar sightings
mean, but the most logical explanation is that they are ground targets re-
flected by an atmospheric temperature inversion layer. The validity of this
statement cannot be established. It is felt that radar sightings in this study
are of no significance whatsoever unless a visual sighting of the object also
is made.
Taken in conjunction with the Chi Square Tests discussed earlier,
the results of the re-evaluation of reports identified as UNKNOWN
SIGHTINGS would seem to indicate that the majority of them could easily
77
ip—
■T2.
have been familiar objects. However, the resolution of this question with
any degree of certainty appears to be impossible.
Thus, out of the 434 OBJECT SIGHTINGS that were identified aa
UNKNOWNS by the data reduction process, there were only 12 that were
described with sufficient detail that they could be used in an attempt to
derive a model of a "flyinft saucer 11 . The following is a summary of the 12
good UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS:
Case I (Serial 0573.00)
Two men employed by a rug-cleaning firm were driving across a
bridge at 0955 hours on July 29, 1948, when they saw an object glide across
the road a few hundred feet in front of them. It was shiny and metallic in
construction, about 6 to 8 feet long and 2 feet wide. It was in a flat glide
path at an altitude of about 30 feet and in a moderate turn to the left. It was
seen for only a few seconds and apparently went down in a wooded area,
although no trace of it was found.
Case II (Serial 4508.00)
A naval aviation student, his wife, and several others were at a
drive-in movie from 2115 to 2240 hours on April 20, 1952, during which
time they saw several groups of objects fly over. There were from two to
nine objects in a group and there were about 20 groups. The groups of
78
objects flew in a straight line except for some changes in direction
accomplished in a manner like any standard aircraft turn.
The objects were shaped like conventional aircraft. The unaccount-
able feature of the objects was that each had a red glow surrounding it and
was glowing itself, although it was a cloudless night.
Two tower operators sighted a light over a city airport at 2020 hours
on January 20, 1951. Since a commercial plane was taking off at this
time, the pilots were asked to investigate this light. They observed it at
2026 hours. According to them, it flew abreast of them at a greater
radius as they made their climbing turn, during which time it blinked some
lights which looked like running lights. While the observing plane was still
in its climbing turn, the object made a turn toward the plane and flew across
its nose. As the two men turned their heads to watch it, it instantly
appeared on their other side flying in the same direction as they were
flying, and then in 2 or 3 seconds it slipped under them, and they did not
see it again. Total time of the observation was not stated. In appearance,
it was like an airplane with a cigar-shaped body and straight wings, some-
what larger than a B-29. No engine nacelles were observed on the wings.
I
M
79
I
. !
Case V (Serial 0565.00 to 0565.03)
A pilot and copilot were flying a DC-3 at 0340 hours on July 24, 1948,
when they saw an object coming toward them. It passed to the right and
slightly above them, at which time it went into a steep climb and was lost
from sight in some clouds. Duration of the observation was about 10
seconds. One passenger was able to catch a flash of light as the object
passed. The object seemed powered by rocket or jet motors shooting a
trail of fire some 50 feet to the rear of the object. The object had no wings
or other protrusion and had two rows of lighted windows.
Black
Copilot
81
Case VI (Serial 4822.00)
An instrument technician, while driving from a large city toward an
Air Force base on December 22, 1952, saw an object from his car at 1930
hours. He stopped his car to watch it. It suddenly moved up toward the
. zenith in spurts from right to left at an angle of about 45*. It then moved
off in level flight at a high rate of speed, during which maneuver it appeared
white most of the time, but apparently rolled three times showing a red
side. About halfway through its roll it showed no light at all. It finally
assumed a position to the south of the planet Jupiter at a high altitude, at
which position it darted back and forth, ' left and right alternately. Total
time of the observation was 15 minutes. Apparently, the observer just
stopped watching the object.
. Information Div
Office, Secretary of \h
Boom 4?0S. Ho b . 45 t £ h
*" *»* 17, Kew forfc
No light
Case 3ZT
Deep red
82
Case VII (Serial 2728. 00)
A Flight Sergeant saw an object over an Air Force base in Korea at
0842 hours on June 6, 1952. The object flew in a series of spinning and
tumbling actions. It was on an erratic course, first flying level, then
stopping momentarily, shooting straight up, flying level and again tumbling,
then changing course, and disappearing into the sun. It reappeared and was
seen flying back and forth across the sun. At one time an F-86 passed
between the observer and the object. He pointed it out to another man who
saw it as it maneuvered near the sun.
Blank lines evenly spaced
Proportion 1 to 1
(Dimensions are as
shown in observer's
original drawing)
S'S
Case VIII (Serial 0576.00)
An electrician was standing by the bathroom window of his home,
facing west, at 0825 hours on July 31, 1948, when he first sighted an object.
He ran to his kitchen where he pointed out the object to his wife. Total
time in sight was approximately 10 seconds, during which the object flew
on a straight and level course from horizon to horizon, west to east.
Noted shadow
20 '
(Ratio approx. 3:1)
84
85
Case X (Serial 1119.00)
An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical lab-
oratory and some other employees of this lab, were by a river, 2-l/2
miles from its mouth, when they saw an object. The time was about 1700
hours on May 24, 1949. The object was reflecting sunlight when observed
by naked eye. However, he then looked at it with 8-power binoculars, at
which time there was no glare. (Did glasses have filter?) It was of
metallic construction and was seen with good enough resolution to show
that the skin was dirty. It moved off in horizontal flight at a gradually in-
creasing rate of speed, until it seemed, to approach the speed of a jet
before it disappeared. No propulsion was apparent. Time of observation
was 2-1/2 to 3 minutes.
86
Case XI (Serial 1550.00)
On March 20, 1950, a Reserve Air Force Captain and an airlines
Captain were flying a commercial airlines flight. At 21:26, the airline
Captain directed the attention of the Reserve Air Force Captain to an object
which apparently was flying at high speed, approaching the airliner from
the south on a north heading. The Reserve Air Force Captain focused his
attention on the object. Both crew members watched it as it passed in front
of them and went out of sight to the right. The observation, which lasted
about 25 to 35 seconds, occurred about 15 miles north of a medium-sized
city When the object passed in front of the airliner, it was not more than
1/2 mile distant and at an altitude of about 1000 feet higher than the airliner.
The object appeared to be circular, with a diameter of approximately
100 feet and with a vertical height considerably less than the diameter,
giving the object a disc-like shape. In the top center was a light which was
blinking at an estimated 3 flashes per second. This light was so brilliant
that it would have been impossible to look at it continuously had it not been
blinking. This light could be' seen only when the object was approaching
and after it had passed the airliner. When the object passed in front of the
observers, the bottom side was visible. The bottom side appeared to have
9 to 12 symmetrical oval or circular portholes located in a circle approxi-
mately 3/4 of the distance from the center to the outer edge. Through these
portholes came a soft purple light about the shade of aircraft fluorescent
lights. The object was traveling in a straight line without spinning. Con-
sidering the visibility, the length of time the object was in sight, and the
distance from the object, the Reserve Air Force Captain estimates the
speed to be in excess of 1000 mph.
87
Flashing light
Cast. XI
88
Case XII (Serial 3601. 00)
At 0535 on the morning of August 25, 1952, a musician for a radio
station was driving to work from his home when he noticed an object
hovering about 10 feet above a field near the road along which he was
driving. As he came abreast of the object, he stopped his car and got out
to watch. Having an artificial leg, he could not leave the road, since the
surrounding terrain was rough. However, he was within about 100 yards
of it at the point he was standing on the road. The object was not absolutely
still, but seemed to rock slightly as it hovered. When he turned off the
motor of his car, he could hear a deep throbbing sound coming from the
object. As he got out of the c-ar, the object began a vertical ascent with a
sound similar to "a large covey of quail starting to fly at one time". The
object ascended vertically through broken clouds until out of sight. His
view was not obscured by clouds. The observer states that the vegetation
was blown about by the object when it was near the ground.
Description of the object is as follows:
It was about 75 feet long, 45 feet wide, and 15 feet thick, shaped like
two oval meat platters placed together. It was a dull aluminum color, and
had a smooth surface. A medium-blue continuous light shone through the
one window in the front section. The head and shoulders of one man, sitting
motionless, facing the forward edge of the object, were visible. In the
midsection of the object were several windows extending from the top to the
rear edge of the object; the midsection of the ship had a blue light which
gradually changed to different shades. There was a large amount of activity
and movement in the midsection that could not be identified as either human
or mechanical, although it did not have a regular pattern of movement.
There were no windows, doors or portholes, vents, seams, etc., visible
to the observer in the rear section of the object or under the object (viewed
at time of ascent). Another identifiable feature was a series of propellers
6 to 12 inches ih diameter spaced closely together along the outer edge of
the object. These propellers were mounted on a bracket so that they
revolved in a horizontal plane along the edge of the object. The propellers
were revolving at a high rate of speed.
Investigation of the area soon afterward showed some evidence of
vegetation being blown around. An examination of grass and soil samples
taken indicated nothing unusual. Reliability of the observer was considered
good.
89
Approximately
75* long
Case
These 12 sightings can be classed into four categories on the basis of
their shapes, as follows:
(1) Propeller shape - Case I
(2) Aircraft shape - Cases II and III
(3J Cigar shape — Cases IV and V
(4) Elliptical or disc shape - Cases VI to XII
The criterion for choosing the above sightings was that their das = ri P-
tions were given in enough detail to permit diagrams of the objects to e
drawn It might be noted here that in all but one of these cases (Case XI)
the observer had already drawn a diagram of what he had seen.
The objective of this section of the study was the conceiving of a
model, or models. The requirement that the description be deta led is an
important one, and was the easiest to determine in the re-evaluation pro-
gram. However, a good model ought to satisfy the following conditions as
well:
(1) The general shape of the object and the maneuver si t
performed should fit the reports of many of the UNKNOWN
and thus explain therri.
(2) The observer and the report should be reliable.
(3) The report should contain elements which should have
been observed with accuracy, and which eliminate the
possibility that the sighting could be ascribed to a
familiar object or to a known natural phenomenon.
(4) The model should be derived from two or more g ood
UNKNOWNS between which there is no essential conflic .
It can be shown that it is not possible to deduce a model bornthell
cases that will satisfy all of these conditions. The fol ® ”
discussion of the 12 good UNKNOWNS will illustrate this point.
(1) Case I does not satisfy Conditions 1 and 4. The reported
shape of this object is not duplicated in any of the other
UNKNOWNS.
(2) Case II does not satisfy Conditions 1 and 3. J**®
very few UNKNOWNS in the aircraft sha P= claS f '
In addition, the unusual characteristic of this sightmg
(i e , the red glow) could have been reflection of the
lights of Flint from the objects if they were either birds
or aircraft.
91
a
(3) Case III does not satisfy Condition 1. It also does not
satisfy Condition 4 when Case II is eliminated as a
good UNKNOWN.
(4) Case IV does not satisfy Conditions 1 or 2. There are
few cigar-shaped or rocket-shaped objects reported in
the literature. In addition, this observer is not con-
sidered to be well-qualified technically.
(5) Case V does not satisfy Condition 1. It also does not
satisfy Condition 4 when Case IV is eliminated as a
good UNKNOWN.
It might be argued here that many of the UNKNOWNS might actually
have shapes similar to these good UNKNOWNS. It will be noted, however,
that each of these five cases does not satisfy one of the other three condi-
tions.
(6) Case VI does not satisfy Condition 2. In the description
of the object, it was stated that at certain times there
was no light seen from the object. Apparently, the
"band of no light", as diagrammed by the observer, was
an attempt to explain this. However, if the object were
constructed as shown in the diagram, light should have
been seen at all times. Because of this conflict the
drawing is not considered reliable, and without the draw-
ing, there is not enough detail in the description to make
* it'useful for this study.
(7) Case VII violates Conditions 1 and 4. Although the shape
is disc-like, the maneuvers performed by the object are
unique both among the UNKNOWNS and among the good
UNKNOWNS.
Cases VUI to XII satisfy Conditions 1 through 3, but they do not
satisfy Condition 4. The features which make them different from each
other are as follows:
(8) Case VIII. The object is smooth, with no protrusions
or other details.
(9) Case IX. The object had rocket or jet pods on each
side that were shooting out flames.
(10) Case X. The object had a fin or rudder.
(11) Case XI. The object had a series of portholes, or
windows, on its under side.
92
(12) Case XII. 'The object had windows in its top and front
and its top midsection. It also had a set of propellers
around its waist.
It is not possible, therefore, to derive a verified model of a "flying
saucer" from the data that have been gathered to date. This point is im-
portant enough to emphasize. Out of about 4, 000 people who said they saw
a "flying saucer", sufficiently detailed descriptions were given in only 12
cases. Having culled the cream of the crop, it is still impossible to develop
a picture of what a "flying saucer" is.
In addition to this study of the good UNKNOWNS, an attempt was made
to find groups of UNKNOWNS for which the observed characteristics were, v
the same. No such groups were found.
On the basis of this evidence, therefore, there is a low probability
that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observations of a class of "flying
saucers". It may be that some reports represent observations of not one
but several classes of objects that might have been "flying saucers";
however, the lack of evidence to confirm even one class would seem to make
this possibility remote. It is pointed out that some of the cases of KNOWNS,
before identification, appeared fully as bizarre as any of the 12 cases of
good UNKNOWNS, and, in fact, would have been placed in the class of good
UNKNOWNS had it not been possible to establish their identity.
This is, of course, contrary to the bulk of the publicity that has been
given to this problem. The reason for the nature of this publicity was
clearly brought out during the re-evaluation study. It is a definite fact that
upon reading a few reports, the reader becomes convinced that "flying
saucers" are real and are some form of sinister contrivance. This reaction
is independent of the training of the reader or of his attitude toward the
problem prior to the initial contact. It is unfortunate that practically all of
the articles, books, and news stories dealing with the phenomenon of the
"flying saucer" were written by men who were in this category, that is,
men who had read only a few selected reports. This is accentuated by the
fact that, as a rule, only the more lurid-sounding reports are cited in these
publications. Were it not for this common psychological tendency to be
captivated by the mysterious, it is possible that no problem of this nature
would exist.
The reaction, mentioned above, that after reading a few reports, the
reader is convinced that "flying saucers" are real and are some form of
sinister contrivance, is very misleading. As more and more of the reports
are read, the feeling that "saucers" are real fades, and is replaced by a
feeling of skepticism regarding their existence. The reader eventually
reaches a point of saturation, after which the reports contain no new infor-
mation at all and are no longer of any interest. This feeling of surfeit was
universal among the personnel who worked on this project, and continually
necessitated a conscious effort on their part to remain objective.
93
i8
CONCLUSIONS
It can never be absolutely proven that "flying saucers" do not exist.
This would be true if the data obtained were to include complete scientific
measurements of the attributes of each sighting, as well as complete and
detailed descriptions of the objects sighted. It might be possible to demon-
strate the existence of "flying saucers" with data of this type, IF they were
to exist.
Although the reports considered in this study usually did not contain
scientific measurements of the attributes of each sighting, it was possible
to establish certain valid conclusions by the application of statistical
methods in the treatment of the data. Scientifically evaluated and arranged,
the data as a whole did not show any marked patterns or trends. The in-
accuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of
a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends
that otherwise would have been evident. This absence of indicative relation-
ships necessitated an exhaustive study of selected facets of the data in order
to draw any valid conclusions.
A critical examination of the distributions of the important char-
acteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated
as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, prin-
cipally the reported maneuvers of the objects and the unavailability of
supplemental data such as aircraft flight plans or balloon- launching records,
resulted in the failure to identify as KNOWNS most of the reports of objects
classified as UNKNOWNS.
An intensive study, aimed at finding a verified example of a "flying
saucer" or at deriving a verified model or models of "flying saucers" (as
defined on Page 1), led to the conclusion that neither goal could be attained
using the present data.
It is emphasized that there was a complete lack of any valid evidence
consisting of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial
object.
Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this
study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the
most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated
and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since
the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends.
Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is
considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified
aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technologi-
cal developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.
94
Table Al.
Evaluation of
Table A2.
Evaluation of
Table A3.
Evaluation of
Table A4.
Evaluation of
Table A5.
Evaluation of
Table A6.
Evaluation of
Table A7.
Evaluation of
Table A8.
Evaluation of
Table A9.
Evaluation of
Table A10.
Evaluation of
Table All.
Evaluation of
Table A12.
Evaluation of
Table A13.
Evaluation of
Table A14.
Evaluation of
Table A15.
Evaluation of
Table A16.
Evaluation of
Table A17.
Evaluation of
Table A18.
Evaluation of
Table A19.
Evaluation of
Table A20.
Evaluation of
Table A21.
Evaluation of
Table A22.
Evaluation of
Table A23.
Evaluation of
Table A24.
Evaluation of
Table A25.
Evaluation of
Table A26.
Evaluation of
Table A27.
Evaluation of
Table A28.
Evaluation of
Table A29.
Evaluation of
Table A30.
Evaluation of
Table A3 1.
Evaluation of
Table A32.
Evaluation of
Table A33.
Evaluation of
95 and 96
70
Tabic A34.
Table A35.
Table A36.
Table A37.
Table A38.
Table A39.
Table A40.
Table A41.
Table A42.
Table A43.
Table A44.
Table A45.
Table A46.
Table A47.
Table A48.
Table A49.
Table A50.
Table A51.
Table A52.
Table A53.
Table A54.
Table A55.
Table A56.
Table A57.
Table A58.
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1948 . .
Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1949 . .
Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1950 . . .
Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1951 . . .
Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1952 . . .
Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, All Year*
Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1947 . .
Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1948 . .
Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1949 . .
Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1950 . ,
Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1951 . .
Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1952 . .
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Military Observers • '••••••
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Civilian Observers
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1947 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Military Observers
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1947 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Civilian Observers • . • •
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1948 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Military Observers ,**
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1948 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Civilian Observers
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1949 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Military Observers
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1949 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Civilian Observers ,
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1950 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Military Observers .
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1950 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Civilian Observers
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1951 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Military Observers
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1951 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Civilian Observers .
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1952 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Military Observers
Page
132
132
133
133
133
134
134
134
134
135
135
135
136
136
136
136
137
137
137
137
138
138
138
138
139
98
7
Table A59.
Table A60.
Table A61.
Table A62.
Table A63.
Table A64.
Table A65.
Table A66.
Table A67.
Table A68.
Table A69.
Table A70.
Table A71.
Table A72.
Table A73.
Table A74.
Table A75.
Table A76.
Table A77.
Table A78.
Table A79.
Table A80.
Table A81.
Table A82.
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Evaluation of All Sightings for 1952 by Sighting Reliability Groups,
Civilian Observers
Reported Colors of Objects Sighted by Years, All Sightings
Reported Colors of Objects Sighted by Year^, Unit Sightings
Reported Colors of Objects Sighted by Years, Object Sightings .......
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported ..;....
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported ......
Evaluation of All Sightings for. All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
One Object
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Two Objects * *
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Three to Ten Objects
Evaluation of All Sightings for. All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Eleven or More Objects
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Number of Objects Not Stated
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
One Object
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Two Objects •'••••
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Three to Ten Objects
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Eleven or More Objects •••••••••*••
Evaluation of- Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Number of Objects Not Stated
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
One Object
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Two Objects
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Three to Ten Objects <••••••
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Eleven or More Objects
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting,
Number of Objects Not Stated
Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, AU Years . • • • • <
Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1947
139
140
140
140
141
142'
143
144
144
145
145
146
147
147
148
148
149
150
150
151
151
152
153
153
99
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Table A83. Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1948 154
Table A84. Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1949 154
Table A85. Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1950 . . 155
Table A86. Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1951 155
Table A87. Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1952 . . 156
Table A88. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, All Years 157
Table A89. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1947 . . . 157
Table A90. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1948 . . . 158
Table A91. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1949 • . • • 158
Table A92. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1950 159
Table A93. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1951 159
Table A94. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1952 160
Table A95. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, All Years • . 16 1
Table A96. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1947 161
Table A97. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1948 . 162
Table A98. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1949 162
Table A99. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1950 '. . 163
Table A 100. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sightings, 1951 163
Table A101. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1952 164
Table A 102. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Five Seconds or Less 165
Table A103. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Six to Ten Seconds 166
Table A104. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Eleven to Thirty Seconds 167
Table A 105, Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Thirty One to Sixty Seconds 168
Table A 106, Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Sixty One Seconds to Five Minutes 169
Table A 107. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Six to Thirty Minutes 170
Table A 108. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Over Thirty Minutes 171
Table A 109. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Duration Not Stated 172
100
*73
Table A110.
Table Alll.
Table A117.
Table A118.
Table A119.
Table A120.
Table A121.
Table A122.
Table A123.
/
Table A 124.
Table AX25.
Table A126.
Table A 127.
Table A128.
Table A129.
Table A130.
Table A131.
Table A132.
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years, by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Five Seconds or Less 173
Evaluation of Unit Sighting* for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Six to Ten Seconds * • • •* 174
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Eleven to Thirty Seconds 175
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Thirty One to Sixty Seconds * 17 *>
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Sixty One Seconds to Five Minutes 177
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Six to Thirty Minutes I 78
Evaluation of Unit Sightings Tor All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Over Thirty Minutes * 179 .
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Duration Not Stated 180
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Five Seconds or Less 1
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Six to Ten Seconds
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Eleven to Thirty Seconds • •
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Thirty One to Sixty Seconds
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months
of Year, Sixty One Seconds to Five Minutes ' .
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months lgfc
of Year, Six to Thirty Minutes ......
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months lg?
of Year, Over Thirty Minutes *
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months 18g
of Year, Duration Not Stated
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Elliptical . . . . W
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Rocket and Aircraft 189
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Meteor or Comet
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Lenticular, Conical, ... 190
or Teardrop • •
191
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Flame
191
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Other Shapes • •
192
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Shape Not Stated
101
Table A133.
Table A 134.
Table A135.
Table A 136.
Table A137.
Table A138.
Table A139.
Table A140.
Table A141.
Table A 142.
Table A 143.
Table A 144.
Table A145,
Table A146.
Table A 147.
Table A148.
Table A 149.
Table A150.
Table A151.
Table A152.
Tabid A 153.
Table A 154.
Table A 155.
Table A156.
Table A157.
Table A158.
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Elliptical 193
*
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Rocket and Aircraft 193
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Meteor or Comet • . ... . . . 194
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Lenticular,
Conical, or Teardrop 194
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Flame 195
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Other Shapes 195
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Shape Not Stated 196
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Elliptical 197
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Rocket and Aircraft 197
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Meteor or Comet 198
Evaluation of Object Sightings for A11 Years by Shape of Object, Lenticular,
Conical, or Teardrop * 198
Evaluation of Object Sightings £ot All Years by Shape of Object, Flame 199
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape' of Object, Other Shapes 199
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Shape Not Stated .' 200
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Stationary 201
Evaluation of All Sightirigs for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Less
Than One Hundred Miles per Hour ^201
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, One
Hundred to Four Hundred Miles per Hour 202
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Over
Four Hundred Miles per Hour 202
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects,
Meteor-Like Speeds 203
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, .
Speed Not Stated 203
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for Ail Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Stationary. ' . . ... 204
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Leas Than
One Hundred Miles per Hour ,.•••••••••• 204
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, One Hundred
to Four Hundred Miles per Hour ••••• 205
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Oyer
Four Hundred Miles per Hour •••••...•••• 205
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects,
Meteor-Like Speeds • 206
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects,
Speed Not Stated ••••••»•• 206
102
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
-7r
Table A159.
Table A 160.
Table A 161.
Table A 162.
Table A163.
Table A 164.
Table A 165.
Table A166.
Table A 167.
Table A168.
Table A 169.
Table A170.
Table A171.
Table A172.
Table A 173.
Table A174.
Table A175.
Table A 176.
Table A177.
TaL.le A 178.
Table A 179.
Table A180.
Table A181.
Table A182.
Table A 183.
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Stationary
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Less
Than One Hundred Miles per Hour ...»
Elevation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, One
Hundred to Four Hundred Miles per Hour
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Over
Four Hundred Miles per Hour. ••••*••••••••••
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects,
Meteor-Like Speeds
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects,
Speed Not Stated • . « i •••••• •
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Light Brightness
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Light Brightness
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Light Brightness
Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, All Years
Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for AM Sightings, 1947
Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1948
Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1949
Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1950
Location of Observer During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1951 •
Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1952 • ••••*•*
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, White or Glowing White Objects j
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Metallic Objects ? *
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration j
of Sighting, Object Color Not Stated .-•"•••• j
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Color- Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Orange or .Glowing Orange Objects . .
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Repor/ed for Duration
of Sighting, Red or Glowing Red Objects . . • • y
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Green or Glowing Green Objects •
Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Yellow or Glowing Yellow Objects ...#••••
Evaluation of.All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Objects of Other Colors
Evaluation of Unit Sightings for Ail Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, White or Glowing White Objects
Page
207
207
208
208
209
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
220
221
221
222
222
223
223
224
103
"7 6
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table A184. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Veara by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Metallic Objects
Table A 185. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Object Color Not Stated
Table A186. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Orange or Glowing Orange Objects
Table A 187. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Red or Glowing Red Objects . . ‘ •..••••••• •
Table A 188. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Green or Glowing Green Objects
Table A 189. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Yellow or Glowing Yellow Objects
Table A 190. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Objects of Other Colors
Table A 191. Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, White or Glowing White Objects .
Table A192. Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported fo* Duration
of Sighting, Metallic Objects
Table A193. Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Object Color Not Stated . .
Table A194. Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Orange or Glowing Orange Objects
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Red or Glowing Red Objects • •
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Gyeen or Glowing Green Objects . . . . .. .
Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Yeats by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Yellow or Glowing Yellow Objects . .' . . . . . . . •
Table A 198. Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration
of Sighting, Objects of Other Colors • . • • • • •' • . • • • * • • •
Table A 199. Evaluation cf All Sightings for All Years bv Number of Objects per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, One Object • *••••*
Table A200. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, Two Objects
Table A201. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, Three to Ten Objects ,'....
Table A202. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, Eleven or More Objects
Table A203. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, Number of Objects Not Stated
Table A204. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, One Object . , . .
Table A205. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, Two Objects
Table A195.
Table A196.
Table A197.
224
225
225
226
226
227
227
228
228
229
229
230
230
231
231
232
232
233
233
234
235
235
104
77
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Page
T a ble A206. Evaluation of Unit Sighting. for All Year, by Number of Object, per Sighting ^
for Duration of Sighting} Three to Ten Object* .•• ••••••••••••
Table AZ07. Evaluation of Unit Sightinga for All Year, by Number of Object, per Sighting 2J6
for Duration of Sighting, Eleven or More Object
Table A208. Evaluation of Unit Sighting, for All Year, by Number of Object, per Sighting 2 „
for Duration of Sighting, Number of Object* Not Stated
Table A209. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by Number of Object, per Sighting # 238
for Duration of Sighting, One Object •••• •••• a
Table A210. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by Number of Object, per Sighting 238
for Duration of Sighting, Two Object* *
Table A211. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by Number of Object, per Sighting
for Duration of Sighting, Three to Ten Object*
Table A212. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by Number of Object, per Sighting . . 23 ,
for Duration of Sighting, Eleven or More Object*
Table A213. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by Number of object, per Sighting 240
for Duration of Sighting, Number of Object. Not Stated
Table A214. Evaluation of All Sighting, for All Year, by Geographic Location 241
Table A215. Evaluation of Unit Sighting, for All Year, by Geographic Location 2
^ . . 242
Table A216. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by Geographic Location
Table A217. Evaluation of All Sighting, for All Year, by North American Location 243
Table A218. Evaluation of Unit Sighting, for All Year, by North American Location 243
Table A219. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by North American Location * ^
Table A220. Evaluation of All Sighting, for All Year, by United State. Regional Location 2 «
Table A221. Evaluation of Unit Sighting, for All Year, by United State. Regional Location
Table A222. Evaluation of Object Sighting, for All Year, by United State. Regional Location
Table A223. Evaluation of All Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the Central Ea.t Region 2 «
Table A224. Evaluation of All Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the Centra. Midwe.t Region
Table A225. Evaluation of All Sighting, in ^Strategic Area, of the Central Tarweet Region ^
Table A226. Evaluation of Ail Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the South Midwe.t Region ^
Table A227. Evaluation of All Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the South We.t Region 2 ^
Tab,. A228. Evaluation of All Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the South Farwe.t Region
. Z50
Table A229. Evaluation of Unit Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the Central Ea.t Regton ^
Table A 230, Evaluation..! Unit Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the Centra, Midwe.t Region ^
Table A231. Evaluation of Uni, Sighting, in the Strategic Area.Vif the Centra,. Farwe.t Region ^
Table A232. Evaluation of Unit Sighting, in the Strategic Area, of the South Midwe.t Begin
105
75
INDEX OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table A233.
Table A234.
Table A235.
Table A236.
Table A237.
Table A238.
Table A239.
Table A240.
Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South West Region
Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South F arwest Region
Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central East Region
Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Midwest Region ......
Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Farwest Region ......
Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Midwest Region
Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South West Region
Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Farwest Region
Page
251
251
252
252
252
253
253
253
106
/) / 'Sur/a/v' Z ZZ S/6rtrt/ IL3 } 4V ‘t'itt& L
—
_JU
L Ji
-y^VT
^ F
mCm\
lywrtjl
“tJuT
Cert »*
DoobOul
j!±
f Z—
*
C«tM
*<**
OmMM
mr
Cat m
NM>
oSg
m
Tisr
p
Cwtaia
«C«4
MM
"W
C«tM
Ml
Urn
r
CatM
«C«I
OmMM
T«nr
JStJ
*,? 2
E«**M
O-Batf m
Cxtaia
ml
Pe*»aJ
-tie.
Tow
111
WWW
ML
A
Ha
2
Ha
1A
ML
AL
4?/
ML
y <7
AL
/if
Al
ML
/0/j
ILL
Itc
Al-
74
£
/ it.
2/
200
I«z
1-7
ML
??.*
fVUwrf
AL
2£l
ail
\_21L
/)tf
w
41
AL
in
/AO
A
Af
Al
L m.
f.i
12.
-2
Z
5
0
A
lL
n
<Lt4
11
a
lb-
ML
0.0
m
Al
Al
3.(l.
AL
2
Ji
s'
-M
AL
A
a
ML
Ml
Ml
-21-2—
OlL
ML
AL
A
AL
0
*7
A
ML
AA.
AL.
00
A'
M2
H.I0* n«i
MM
«*•*,&■* *.
. 22
ML
a
. ZtL
ML
A
afe
-2£
U.
ML
AS
ML
ml
ML
1
0
CL
ML
CL
n
J2JL
j) /)
MLiL
/)/)
111
/)/)
0
2-
0
S’
0
ML
0,0
A
ML
1 -s
AA
A
A
/
ML
S'
A
A
-tLCL
02
ML
12
A
/i
z#
0 3
0.0
ftp
70
0
JO
*./
00
4 •
frMM*.
Wi»cW*«i
MM
MM
T«W
J2L
A
JJL
AL
lw>
0
A
A
ME.
I W-
iXt
AL
1L
12.
2l£.
15
m
<?0
ILL
ML
-LL
~LLL
11
_Z£
1JL
ML
m
/'/
A
1L
>±
He
-1-
A.
A
/t
3
li-
Jff
la
ML
AL
m
4S
JZL
U.U-
ML
ML
ML
ML2.
l&aL
ALL
lit
Ml
ISA.
1
1
AL
o
~JL
. fi—
A
ML
A
JLL
J12
A
LuS
ML
ML
2U
J/'i
222
A
USA
SL.
//
1 JL
0
0
0
ML
A
56
Al
HL
Al
ML
JJi
62*
00
Ol
00-,
OL
ML
MJ
zoo.
107
go
■Tjt/tur /9f E/Atl/jr/P/lr s2/L i2Jl£lL 1 S/GftT' /(i/dS. JA. V£/*U-
_ >?// ^
ft
7*
i*SL
'9
t
Pu Cert
tesstef
Pec Cent
Nm*«
PaiCari '
p
VCari
rr-TS —
CartM
-tsst
CartJU
OMfctW
Tea
:«tM
OcmUM
tsr
CartM
(MUM
Tea
>tM
OoaMM
Trial
DmMM
T«a
OmMM
Tfitd
HMm
/If,
33t
Q(j
LO
l£Y
7
0
7
If
00
if
//
/ft.
AL
xl
Aft
ILL
//
-ft
Aft
Aft
Aft-
~JA
YkjUm Mkd
2a z
I/It
its
f?
2( /
-j
g
it
10, l
/ft, l
mi
2f
Aft
ft L
ftJ-
JftL
lift
At
-ftft
AL
/LA-
lift
YU
Wroift
Z-/-L-
fLf
fQQ
i//4
M
1 r
ZL3
7,
2
Y
tf
7$
SO
/f
7
Aft
ftJL
z.(
UL
Aft
Aft
-JO
Aft
t,Y
ALA
)>U#t FMm.
t#
//
4t
i*/
o. i
It
£
ft
z
73
0,0
f**
2
s
f
ML
AL
JtJL
-ft
-ft
o
0,0
A2A
.0(1
It
It
t‘ V-
A3
da
(0
0
ft
ft
0,0
00
(?o
2
3
Aft
Aft
ftft
t
—ft
-ft
Aft-
Aft
Aft.
K34s4s.Ctert.cic.
f
/
t)./
0.3
a< 7
0
ft
ft
Oft
0,0
OP
ft
-ft-
—ft
Aft
ao
to
0
—ft
-ft
0.0
00
J2A
MwflcMk
4J/)
0
4Ao
lOti
nr)
10$
(2
ft
/t
/SZ
00
/f.i
Aft
ft
Aft
JLl
00
i/f
Aft
-ft
2L
lift
Aft
Aft
?Pi>dal»#a<
is
9
/ft
U
aft
to
/
Z
f
?,r
IS
JuL
A
—ft.
-L-
Aft
00
At
ft.
0
s
ft
Aft.
Aft
1 Itrfnn
</i</
— J-
0
Ys/
il.l
00
itl
2Z
ft
2*
u,t
ft. ft
lift
ALL
-ft.
/?
jnft
Oo
iftft
0
Al.
ft
Aft
111-
&0&3
fs
2.9
//ft
H
3x0
/(
ft
//
/it
A2A
111
7
7
-ft-
AL
Aft
AL
6
—ft
A
Al
00
ft
IN
i3£
uk
nil.
It A
*tf
SO—
A
ft
AL
m
JLL
Ml.
ji
fa
all.
i££
SLA.
too.
ILL
-1ft
ISA
tti
Aft
/9<y?
ft
fl
- ft
LL
EvafcrtM
P*f Cari
IWH
PtrCeal
. MaAec
PwCaat
*aM
1
Pei tot
Cartria
OMMW
CartM
CMrib!
Trill
Ctrtiia
DmMJmI
Tea
Ceftaa
Oertdri
Tea
:ertea
DtMdeJ
Taw
CartHa
DMriM
Trial
CartM
Oethdif
Trial
CartM
lac.i
Mm
//
Y
23
(2.9
2,Y
M
g
_ft
//
Aft
Aft
M-
dt
ALL
ILL
ff
Aft
VA MmitiIhI
Of
/Y
ff
/Yt
s,.t
:?/
ft
ft
Ate.
JU
JA ft
ILL
ILL
-JL
ILL
Aft
-LA-
IftL
NUwril
it
f
,V
(1.0
fl
lM
/J
_i_
ftL
iIaL
ftft
Oft
101
ail
ILL
/1±
//7
m.
RiriPM.
0
0
0
0,0
n.0
Oo
(
/
Z
0t
-ALL
/i
AL
A
ft
A7
Aft
jj.
W«ri»
0
a
0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0
/
/
A2AL
Aft
AL
2
-ft-
Al
0f
Aft
ft
K3m*i. 0»* **«.
0
0
0
00
0,0
0,0
-ft
-AL
0
ALA
Aft
Aft
f
—L
ft
ILL
0.S
Oft
rUMtr.Wl
//
0
tY
(Yt’
0,0
/YA
ft
0
A
Aft-
Aft
//€
AL 1
.ft
/AL
JLL
AIL
JJL
2
a
z
/t
0,0
<t
/
/
t
AL
ftj.
Aft
AL
—L
AL
Jft
-Aft
/./
UNwa
tf
a
tt
210
0.0
<no
St
0
SL
271
ftft
t/J
SOL
—ft
20L
tot
00
JAl
»Oft«
/
t
If
At
S.S
.. .7.
0
,7
ft*
Aft
ftL
S7
Aft
-LL
Aft
AL
Y.S
T«a
J1L
30
M
111
/7,7
(ft-
1£
Jft-
H(
m
XXX
/OO-
YLL
l&L
ILL
2fY
/LL
108
Exhibit Bl.
Exhibit B2.
Exhibit B3.
Exhibit B4.
Exhibit B5.
Exhibit B6.
Exhibit B7.
Exhibit B8.
INDEX OF FORMS
Tentative Observers Data Sheet
Tentative Observers Questionnaire .
U. S. Air Force Technical Information Sheet .
Codes for Work Sheet
Work-Sheet
Codes for Card Bible
Card Bible
Example oi an IBM Card . • • • • ■ • *
259
267
277
289
297
301
309
313
257 and 258
CODE 76 EVALUATION OF OBSERVER RELIABILITY
Complete
Quite
Fair
Doubtful
Poor
Not
Can't be judged
CODE 78 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION
X PoBsibly
X
Balloon
Astronomical
Aircraft
Light phenomenon
Birds
Clouds, dust, etc.
Rocket or missile
Psychological manifestations
8 Electromagnetic phenomenon
9 Other
CODE 67 ANGULAR ACCELERATION
(Change in angular velocity!
CODE 68 APPEARANCE BEARING
£3
X Variable
Y
0 Zero, V - constant
1 Increasing slowly
2 Decreasing slowly
3 Increasing fast
U Decreasing fast
5 Increasing very fast
6 Decreasing very fast
7
8
9
X
Y
0 N
1 NE
2 E
3 SE
U S
5 sw
6 W
7 NW
8
9
CODE 69 DISAPPEARANCE BEARING
js*®* S '” KK3
Sif F ° rM -
iio *. 45tb Street
«°r§or«ei7, New Vorlc
US
5 sw
6 w
7 NW
8
9
CODE 70-71 ELEVATION
WITH RESPECT TO GROUND. DEGREES
Initial
X Variable
Y
0 0-9
1 10-19
2 20-29
3 30-39
U U0-U9
5 50-39
6 60-69
7 70-79
8 80-89
9
Final
X Variable
Y
0 0-9
1 10-19
2 20-29
3 30-39
U U0-U9
3 30-39
6 60-69
7 70-79
8 80-89
9
CODE 72 OBJECT ORIENTATION
Apparent inclination of principal
axis of object from horizontal
CODE 73 MANEUVERS
X Variable
Y
0 +90° to 60 °
1 +60° to 30°
2 + 30 ° to 10°
3 +10° to 0°
U 0°
g 0° to -10°
6 -10° to -30°
7 -30° to -60°
8 -60° to -90°
9
X
Y
0
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
CODE 7U OBSERVER OCCUPATION
X
Y
0
1
2
3
U
3
6
7
8
9
Civilian, occupation not stated
Army, military
Navy, military
Marine, military
Air force, military
Coast guard, military
Merchant marine, military
Commercial air, civilian
CAA, civilian
Government contractor,
Civilian, other
civilian
307
DE IS EVALUATION OF OBSERVER RELIABILITY CODE ]6 EVALUATION OF REPORT RELIABILITY
X
Y
0 Complete
1 Quite
2 Pair
3 Doubtful
U Poor
$ Not
6
7
9 Cannot be judged
X
Y
0 Complete
1 Quite
2 Fair
3 Doubtful
Ij Poor
5 Not
6
7
8
9 Cannot be judged
CODE 77 RELIABILITY GROUP CLASSIFICATION
(Based on observer and report ratings) CODE 78 FINAL IDENTIFICATION
Excellent (Observer 0 or 1 and Report 0 or l)
Good (Observer 0 or 1, Report 2, 3, or ltj
Observer 2, 3> or 1*, Report 0 or 1} Observer
2, Report 2)
Doubtful (Observer 0 or 1, Report 5> or 9j
Observer 2, Report 3 , U, 5> or 9} Observer
3 or U, Report 2, 3* k, St or 9j Observer S
or 9, Report 0, 1, 2, 3> or U) •
Poor (Observer St 9t or Report f>, 9, or Y)
X Probably
Y '
0 Balloon
1 Astronomical
2 Aircraft
3 Light phenomenon
U Birds
5 Clouds, dust, etc.
6 Insufficient information
7 Psychological manifestations
8 Unknown
9 Other
3CS
(Not for general distribution)
LSi SiP
[-■ V/SS’lf
\ ’‘:P‘jgrV
1
■
i .^r
i • .
. •
: • ' O -y-tv
I •
! \ • ’jbrv: -
(; ;
i
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MINUTES OF PRESS CONFERENCE HELD BY
MAJOR GENERAL JOHN A. SAMFORD
DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE, U. S. AIR FORCE
29 July I952 - 4:00 p. m. - Room 3E-869, The Pentagon
Participating: Major General Roger M. Ramey
Director of Operations, USAF
Colonel Donald L. Bower, Technical Analysis
Division, Air Technical Intelligence Center
Captain RoyL. James, Electronics Branch,
Air Technical Intelligence Center
Captain Edward J. Ruppelt,. Aerial Phenomenon
Branch, Air Technical Intelligence Center
Mr. Burgoyne L. Griffing, Electronics Branch,
” Air Tecnnicnl Intelligence Center
MR. SCHOOLEY: Ladies and gentlemen, let me remind
the military that, while they are welcome here, this is a
press conference and let's he sure that the press is all
seated before the conference begins.
Let me introduce General Samfor.d, Air Force Director
of Intelligence, and General Ramey, Director of Operations.
General Samford.
i
t
t
L
!
r*. ■
MAJOR GENERAL - SAMFORD s I think the plan is to have
very brief opening remarks and then ask for such questions as
you may want to put to us for discussion and answer. In so
far as opening remarks is concerned, I Just want to state our
reason f6r concern about this.
The Air Force feels a very definite obligation to
identify and analyze- things that happen in the air that may
have in them menace to the United States and, because of that
feeling of obligation and our pursuit of that interest, since
1947, we have an activity that was known one time as Project
Saucer and now, as part of another more stable and integrated
organization, have undertaken to analyze between a thousand
If interested in getting a full
copy of this 39 -P&S 0 document,
see inside front cover of hook#
CURRENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE RAMSEY-WALLACE CORPORATION
i # international bibliography and reference guide on urban affairs —
Contains over 500 references on Urban problems, including books, studies and technical
papers published throughout the world. Publication is completely indexed. By
Rosemary H. Wallace, M.L.S., Editor 92 pages
2. FLYING SAUCERS An Analysis of the Airforce Project Blue Book Special Report
No. 14 3rd Edition, Enlarged Prepared by Dr. Leon Davidson 100 pages
$4.00
3. THE MIRROR OF GEOPOLITICS Examines the Sino-Soviet Conflict from the
Standpoint of Seven Basic Geopolitical Assumptions — By R. W. Wallace 20 pages
$ 2.00
4. GUIDE TO GATHERING INFORMATION A Useful Checklist and Guide for those
who must gather information on the basis of Face-to-face Interviews By
Morris Bolsky 30 pages.
5. DESCRIPTION OF 100 SOVIET INDUSTRIAL PLANTS Detailed descriptions
of 100 Manufacturing Plants in. the USSR By R. W. Wallace 100 pages
In Preparation: THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS A discussion of "Creative
Federalism" The growing partnership between major cities and the Federal
Government.
URBAN A Quarterly Magazine devoted to Cities and their problems Past,
Present and Future $15.00 per year $4.00 per issue
$5.00
$2.50
$5.00
For Further Information, Write To:
Ramsey -Wallace Corporation
All Prices Quoted Above Are Retail.
This edition of the Blue Book Special Report No* 14 is published by
the publisher indicated above, as a private venture, without the
participation or support of any agency of any government*
A necessary part or the library of every serious saucer researcher, study group,
and Journalist is now BACK IN PHI NT 3 Third Edition, Enlarged and Updated* $Jo00
,f FLYING SAUCERS: An Analysis of the Air Foree
Project Blue Book Special Report No* 14 ,r
by Dr* Leon Davidson
SPECIAL 30PUSI An exact copy of the famous AFR 200=2 of Aug* 1954 (4 pages)
is Included in each copy at, no oxrtra charge*
Authentic 8 Contains every word of the text of the famous Report No* 14*
Up**to-Datei Contains the Fab* 1, 1966 information booklet, with all statistics
through the beginning of 1966, aa currently issued by the Air Force*
Enlarged^ Contains over 20 pages of raro Air Force Presa Releases from 1949=55*
Revealing^ Gives the baokground of the 1953 CIA Scientific Panel, and its report*
This book is 132 pages, illustrated, soft cover, 3 x 11 inches* Pub* July 1966*
Order through any bookseller (see advertisements) or from your looal bookstore*
(Show them this ad„) Price 3J„00 per copy* Trade discounts and quantity dis-
counts available to Booksellers, Librarien, Study Groups, Cluba, ©to* Write to
Leon Davidson, Room^t., 64 Prospect St*, White Plains, N.Y., 10606*
Special price to sohool and college students ($3*00 per copy, postpaid) available
only by sending your olaas or grade, and name and address of your sohool, with
your order and payment, directly to Leon Davidson at the above address*
Trade Discounts available to Booksellers,, Libraries, Study Groups, Clubs, etc*
1-2 copies, 2C$* >5 copies, 30/.* 6=10 copies.* 35/0 11-15 eopies 5 40/ 0
16 or more copies, 4*$ discount* (Rates apply per oaoh shipmoat to a single
address, and are not cumulative on successive orders*)
Fublished by the Ramsey-Wallace Corp., Heat Main Ota, Ramsey * NaJ*, 07/,46. -
Send Orders to Leon Davidson, Room 3ot, 64 Pro3pect St*, White Plains, N*Y* 10606
</pre>