Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 (Analysis of Reports of Unidentified Aerial Objects)

Text

This text came with the file. It may have mistakes. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.

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