Source: Nicam

The majority of present-day sightings prove to be misinterpretations of natural phenomena: meteors, planets, and stars, or man-made objects such as airplanes, balloons, and satellites. These are referred to as identified flying objects (IFOs). A smaller number of reports cannot be investigated properly due either to lack of pertinent details or the inaccessibility of witnesses. In any given set of UFO reports, however, there remains a residue of about 5-10% which are truly puzzling, not only to witnesses, but to technically trained investigators who study the reports.

While UFO reports differ in many details, there are also a number of similarities recurring in such features as shape, maneuverability, appearance and disappearance, sound and color. There are several basic observational categories into which the unidentifieds may be classified.

The number of sightings worldwide must be in the millions, but there are over 106,000 entries on the UFOCAT (UFO Catalog) computer database. And over three thousand sightings have been cataloged by Dr. Richard Haines, a leading expert on sightings from aircraft, in his "Selected Sightings From Aircraft", observations from over 40 countries.

Dr. Haines: "A long history of UFOs pacing aircraft or rockets, circling them, and fleeing when pursued by military jets, suggests some form of intelligence and curiosity."

Radar/Visuals (RV): There are literally hundreds of reports of radar contact with UFOs. Of special significance are unidentified "blips" on radar screens which coincide with and confirm simultaneous visual sightings by the same or other witnesses.

RELATIVELY CLOSE SIGHTINGS - WITHIN 200 YARDS

1. Close Encounters of the First Kind (CE-1): Though the witness observes a UFO nearby, it does not appear to interact with either the witness or the environment.

2. Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-2): In these encounters there is a reported interaction between the UFO and the environment which may vary from interference to imprints or burns on the ground and physical effects on plants, animals, and humans. Of special interest is a group of such sightings involving vehicle interference. CUFOS published a report in 1981 with 441 cases.

Conclusions: "Since an earthly origin for machines performing in this way for so many years can be ruled out, ET becomes the simplest and most direct hypothetical explanation."

3. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE-3): In this category entities generally of a more-or-less humanlike appearance (now referred to as "humanoids") are reported in or closely associated with the UFO. There is no direct contact or communication with the witness. In regard to this group, based on computer studies of worldwide, national, and regional data, CE-3's have been proven to be extremely rare occurrences. The UFO Filter Center can only vouch for national data from 1986-on for the United States, or from the beginning of the century for regional entries. Regional entries show that CE-3's represent less than 1.7% of the total regional database. The latest entry was for September 20, 1992, at Sullivan, Missouri. Isolated encounters with humanoids with no apparent UFO or craft in the vicinity are referred to as "Humanoid Reports" and are not classified as CE-3's. An example would be of a humanoid seen in a field or near a road, such as reported in the early 1970's. Encounters with humanoids which interact with humans, such as bedroom visitations or attempted abductions, fall within the CE-4 classification below. Of particular interest is the relationship between CE-3's and the total CE group. Except for Close Encounters since 1985 all events prior to that period indicate simultaneous peaks (see graph).

4. Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CE-4): Let it be made clear that, prior to the massive press and media coverage of the 80's concerning UFO abductions, there were sightings of solid objects by qualified observers. There have been many reports, since 1980 and increasing in recent years, of incidents involving very close contact, involving temporary detainment of witnesses. These are usually referred to as UFO abductions. A better name might for an alleged abductee might be an "experiencer". Statistics and graphs on CE-4's are impossible to produce because reports are not filed expeditiously as other reports and date and time parameters are almost always unknown. Many are never filed at all because cases are on-going. These incidents appear to have begun early in the century and in many instances follow bloodlines through several generations.

Many believe that if abduction researchers followed the same guidelines as seasoned UFO researchers, the number of unexplained or actual incidents would be only a fraction of the reported total. Since 90% of the UFO sightings are actually "IFOs", honest evaluators might conclude that, in regard to "abductions", the experiencer is reporting what he or she believes actually happened but the causative factor may fall under other contexts with no relation to UFOs at all.

The best cases to ponder would be cases under investigation by qualified researchers and dealing with at least some conscious memory of an alleged abduction. Make no mistake about it. It is apparent that some or many of these incidents are for real.

WHAT ARE UFOS?
Ignoring sightings of craft and concentrating on the abduction phenomenon, the European view is that these are not real objects at all, but stories based on folklore. Of more interest to them are the crop circles, none of which have been officially linked to UFOs.

The U.S. view varies between the "nuts and bolts" (ET), "earthlights", "plasmas", "time travelers", and "parallel universes". Since the alleged craft sometimes appear to "dematerialize" right in front of the witnesses, many think UFOs cannot be real physical objects. As amply put by Richard Hall in "Univited Guests":

"Popular authors have exploited these themes, especially since the ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) has bogged down for lack of proof, but they remain essentially science fiction notions inaccessible to scientific verification".

KINDS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
After some sightings, indications of the presence of something most unusual have been found.

1. Physical traces. Compressed and dehydrated vegetation, broken tree branches, and imprints in the ground have all been reported. Sometimes a soil sample taken from an area where a UFO had been close to the ground will be determined by laboratory analysis to have undergone heating or other changes not present in the control sample. CUFOS has a computer file of over 5600 such cases.

2. Vehicle interference cases. Sometimes referred to as E-M (Electro-Magnetic) cases, the UFO appears to cause a number of effects on automobile ignition systems. CUFOS has a computer catalog of over 500 such cases.

3. Physiological effects. Medical verification of burns, eye inflammation or temporary blindness, or other physiological effects attributed to encounters with UFOs, even healings of previous conditions, can also constitute evidence, especially when no other obvious cause for the effect can be found by the medical examiner.

4. Radarscope photos. A series of photographs of a radar screen on which a "blip" of a UFO appears is a powerful adjunct to a visual sighting because it provides quantitative evidence of the UFO's motions and velocity.

5. Photographs and videos. While it might seem that photographs would constitute the best evidence for UFOs, this has not been the case. Hoaxes are common but can usually be exposed quite easily, but even those photos which pass the test of microscopic analysis and/or computer enhancement often show no more than an object of unknown nature and frequently out of focus. For proper analysis of a photo it is necessary that the original negative be available and the photographer, witnesses, and circumstances under which the photograph was taken be known. Polaroid photos are more difficult, but not impossible to fake.

Back to Main Articles Page
Former Article

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page