ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDEN,TIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS PROJECT NO. 10073 a significant number of fairly complete r eports by r eliable obse rvers r e - mained unexplained. Although no evidence existed tha t unexplained r eports of sightings constituted a >hysica l threa t to the security of the U. S., in March, 1952, the Air Force decided that all reports o f unidentified aerial objects should be investigated and e v aluated to d e t ermine if "flying saucers" represente d technological developments not known to this country. Originally, the problem involved the pre p a r ation and analysis o f about 1, 300 reports accumulated by the Air Force b etween 1947 and the end of March, 1952. During the course of the work, the number of r eports 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 l arge enough for a Ere - llln.inary statistical analysis, approximately 4, 000 reports. This study was undertaken primarily to c ategorize the a vail able reports of sightings and to determine the probability that any of the r eports 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 h a s assumed a t times in the public mind, this work was undertaken with all the seriousness accorde d to a straightforward s cientific investigation. In order to establish the probability tha t any of the r eports of unidentified aerial objects r epresented observations of "flying saucers", i t was necessary to make an attempt t o nswer the question "Wha t i s a 'flying saucer'?". However, it must be emphasized tha t this w a s only incidenta l to the primary purpose of the study, the d e t ermination of the probability tha t any of the r eports of un- identified aeria l objects r epresented observations of "flyin g saucers", a s defined on P age 1. The basic technique for this study consisted of r educing the availabl e data to a form suitable for mech anica l manipulation, a prerequisite for the pplication of preliminary statistical methods. One of Internationa l Business Machine Corporation's systems w a s chose n a s the b est available mech anical equipment. The reduction of data contained in sighting r eports into a form suit- able for tra n s f e r to IBM punched cards w a s extremely difficult and time consum1ng. For this study a panel of consultants was formed, consisting of both experts within and outside A TIC. During the course of the work, guidance and advice w e r e received from the p a n el. The professiona l exp erie nce available from the p anel covere d 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 (3) Case III does not satisfy Condition 1. It also does not satisfy Condition 4 when Case II i s 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- ( 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 conflic t 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 Cases VIII to XII satisfy Conditions 1 through 3, but they do not satisfy Condition 4. The features whic h make them different from each other are as follows: (8) Case VIII. The objec t is smooth, with no protrusions or other details. ( 9) Case IX. The objec t 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 objec t had a series of portholes, or windows, on its under side. ( 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 the y saw a "flying saucer", sufficiently detailed descriptions were given in only 12 cases. Having culled the cream of the crop, it i s 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 whic h the observed characteristics were the same. No suc h 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 lac k of evidenc e to confirm even one class would seem to make this possibility remote. It i s pointed out that some of the cases of KNOWNS, before identification, appeared fully as bizarre a s any of the 12 cases of good UNKNOWNS, and, in fact, would have been placed in the c lass of good UNKNOWNS had it not been possible to establis h 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 fac t 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 i s accentuated by the fac t that, as a rule, only the more lurid-sounding reports are cited in these publications. Were it not for this common psychological tendenc y to be captivated by the mysterious , it is possible that no problem of this nature would exist. The reaction, mentioned above, that after r eading a few r eports , the reader i s convinced that "flying saucer s " are real and are some form of sinister contrivance, is very misleading. As more and more of the reports are read, the feeling that " saucer s " 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 n e w 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 p art to remain objective. 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 eac h 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 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. S_cientifically 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 pre sent data. It is emphasized that there was a complete lac k of any valid evidence consisting of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial 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 s cientific knowledge. APPENDIX A TABULATIONS OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS BY CHARACTERISTICS INDEX OF TABLES Evaluation o f All Stghllngs by Yea r s Evaluatton of Untt Stghttng by Ycors . Evaluation o f ObjeLt Sightings by Years Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year , All Years. Table A I . 'fable Al. Tabl e A4. Tabl e A6. Evaluation o f All Sightings by Month of Year, 19 4 7 Evaluation of All Sighttngs by Month of Year , 19 4 8 Evaluatton o f All Stghtings by Month o f Year, 1949 Evaluation o f All Sightings by Month of Year, 1950 Evaluation o f All S tghhngs by Month of Year , 1951 Table A 10 . Evalua tion o f All Sightings by Month of Year , 1952 Table All. Evaluation o f Unit Sightings by Month of Year , All Years Table Al2. Evaluation o f Unit Stghtings by Month of Year, 1947 . Tabl e A13 . Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1948 . Tabl e A14. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 19 4 9 . Table A15 . Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1950 Table Al6. Evaluation of Unit Stghtmgs by Month of Year, 1951 Table A17. Evaluation o f Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1952 . Table A18 . Evalua tion of Object Sightings by Month of Year, All Years Tabl e Al9. Evaluallon o f Objec tStghtmgs by Month of Year, 1947 Table A20. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year , 1948 Table A21. Evaluation o f Object Stghtmgs by Month of Year, 1949 Table A22. Evaluallon of Object Sigbttngs by Month o f Year, 1950 Tabl e A23. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Mont h of Year, 1951 Table A24. Evaluatton of Objec t Sightings by Month of Year, 1952 Table A25. Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliabilit y Groups, All Years Tabl e A26. Evaluation of All Stghtmgs by Sighttng Reliabilit y Groups, 1947 Table A27. Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting R e liabilit y Groups, 1948 Tabl e A28. Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability G roups, 19 4 9 Table A29. Evaluation of All Sighllngs by Sighting R eltabtlity Group s , 1950 Table A30. Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting R eliability Groups, 1951 Tabl e A3l. Evaluation of All Stghtmgs by Sighting R eliability Groups, 1952 Table A32. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighttng Reliability Groups, All Years . Tab l e A33. Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighttng Reltability Groups, 1947 . INDEX O F TABLES (Contlnued) Tab l e A 34, F.val u ation o f Unit Sq~htinga by S t ghting R eliabihty Groups, 19 4 8 . Table A35. Evaluatto n o f Unit Sightinga by Slg h hng Reliabiltty Groups, 19 4 9 . Table A36. Evaluation o f Unit Sightinga b y Sighting Reliability Groups, 1950 . Table A37. Evaluatio n o f Unit Sightings by Sighting R eliability Group s , 1951 Table A38. Evaluation o f Unit Sightings b y Sighting Reliability Groups, 195 2 Table A39 . Evaluation of O bject Sightings b y Sightin g Relia bility Groups, All Year s Table A40, Evaluation o f Object Sightings by Sighting Reliabil it y Groups , 1947 Table A41. Evalua tion o f O bJect Sightings by Sighting Reliabilit y Gr oups , 19 4 8 Tab l e A42. Evalu a tion o f Object Sightings by Sig h ting Reliability G roup s , 19 4 9 Tab l e A43, Evaluation of Obje c t Sightings by Stghting Reliabilit y Groups , 1950 . Tab l e A44, Evaluation o f Object Sightings by Sighting Reliabili t y Groups, 1951 . Table A45 , Evaluation o f Object Sightings by S i ghting Reliability Groups, 1952 T a ble A46 . Tabl e A47. Tabl e A48. Table A49 . Table A SO. Table A 51. Tabl e A52, Table A53. Table A 5 4 . Table A SS. Table A56. Tabl e A 57. Table A58. Evaluatio n of All Sightings fo r All Y ears Military Observe r s . . . . by Sighting Reliability G r o ups, E valuation of All Sightings for All Civilian Observer s . . Years by Sighting R e liability Groups, Evaluation of All Sightings for Military Observer s . Evaluation o f All Sightings for Civilian Observer s . valuation of All Stghtings for Military Observer s Eva luation of All Sightings for Civilian Observers . . Evaluation o f All Sightings for ilitary Observer s . Evaluation of All Sightings for Civilian Observer s . . Evaluation o f All Sightings for Militar y Observer s 194 7 by Stghting Reliability Groups, 194 7 by Sighting Reliabilit y Groups, 1948 by Stghting Reliabilit y Groups, 1948 by Sighting Reliability Groups, 19 4 9 by Sighting Reliability Groups, 19 4 9 by Sighting Reliabilit y Groups, 1950 by Sighting Reliabilit y Groups, Evaluation of All Sightings for 1950 by Sighting Reliability G roups, Civilian Observers . . Evaluation of All Sightings for Military Observers . . Evaluation of All Sightings for Civilian Observer s . Evaluation of All Stghtings for Military Observe r s . 1951 by Sighting Reliability G roups, 1951 by Sighting Reliability G roups, 1952 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Table A59. Evaluat1on o f All Stght1ng C1v11lan Obacrv rs LNDEX O F TABLES (Contmucd) for 1952 by Slihllng Rehabillty Croups, Table A bO, Reported Color s of Objec t s S1ghted by Years, All Stght1ngs Table A 61. Reported Colors of Object s Sighted by Years, Uni t S1ght1ng& Table A62, Reported Colors o f ObJects Sighted by Years , ObJe c t Sighttngs Table A63. Evaluation of All Sighting s fo r All Years by Colo r s Reported Table A 64, Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported Table A65. Evaluation o f Obje c t Sightin g s Cor All Years by Color s Reported . Table A66. Table A67. Table A68. Table A69. fable A 70, Table A 71. Table A72, Table A 73. Tabl e A 74. Table A 75. Table A 76. Table A 77. Table A 7 8 . Table A 79. Tabl e ABO. Evaluation of All Sightings fo r All Evaluation of A 11 Sightings fo r All Evaluation o f All Sighti ngs for All Three t o Ten Objec t s . . Years by Number o f ObJects per Stghtmg, Years by Number of Objects p e r Sighting, Year s by Number o f Objec t s per S1ghttng, Evaluatton of All S1ght1ngs fo r All Years by Number of Object s per S1ghttng,