Issuu on Google+

This PDF format document was produced by

The Project Blue Book Archive http://www.bluebookarchive.org with the support of Project 1947, Sign Historical Group, Fund for UFO Research, and the Archives for UFO Research, News and Information Service

If you have found this PDF format document useful please consider making a donation in support of our efforts. Your generous support will help us to achieve our goal of providing free access to hundreds of thousands of official documents related to the U.S. government's investigation of the UFO phenomenon. To make a donation using a credit card or PayPal please use our secure online form available at: http://www.bluebookarchive.org/documentation/support_bba.aspx You may also send a check or money order to the address listed below. Please make checks payable to Blue Book Archive and send them to: Blue Book Archive PO Box 9732 Norfolk, VA 23505 Please note that donations made to the Blue Book Archive are NOT tax deductible. About the Project Blue Book Archive The Project Blue Book Archive contains tens of thousands of documents generated by United States Air Force investigations from the early AMC period through to the end of Project Blue Book. In addition to individual UFO reports the Archive includes administrative files that provide insight into Project Blue Book operations. These administrative files include correspondence, formal reports, status reports, AFOSI investigative reports, and various public statements and briefing materials. The primary source of Archive documents are microfilm rolls made available to the public by the National Archives (NARA) including a set of uncensored rolls first discovered at NARA in 1998. In addition, several rolls of microfilm created during the operation of Project Sign are also included in the Archive. About Project Blue Book Project Blue Book was the code name of the U.S. Air Force’s UFO investigation. Strictly speaking, this name applies only to the time period beginning in March 1952 and ending with the close of investigations in January 1970. Less formally, the name is used to connote the Air Force’s entire period of investigations, which began inside the Air Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson AFB without a specific code name on June 30, 1947. The first named investigation was Project Sign, which was formally initiated on January 26, 1948. This name was changed to Project Grudge on February 12, 1949, and again to Project Blue Book on March 25, 1952. Though it may appear to be a continuous operation, these UFO investigations were subject to shifts in the Air Force priorities and by internal Air Force politics.


5 >

KlCL-

o

c

c/> c/1

2 •"

>< -^ ^" c

P^

n'

? > CO O

n 3<*

•;.-..v »'• v

STUDY NO. IO2-EL-55/2-79

ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS

A)

0 o

PROJECT NO. 10073 2 0

5 MAY 1955

CD

Co

-•

(

Copy No. \,"


a

i

ire

g3 8 a ia> •o a o o > o <D fr »-. W

a (A

0 Cr

TO:

3

s In:

|

Pj

S" a

TOm'

SPECIAL REPORT NO. 14

-

ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS

PROJECT NO. 10073

5 MAY 1955

'-T,\\

No copyright material is contained in this publication.

CD CD CO

ro CD


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY

â&#x20AC;¢

vii

1

INTRODUCTION

1

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DATA

3

REDUCTION OF DATA TO MECHANIZED COMPUTATION FORM

4

Questionnaire

4

Coding System and Work Sheet Identification of Working Papers Evaluation of Individual Reports

6 7 10

-

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

14

Frequency and Percentage Distributions by Characteristics Graphical Presentation Advanced Study of the Data Position of the Sun Relative to the Observer Statistical Chi Square Test The "Flying Saucer" Model

.

CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A.

94 TABULATION OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE

DISTRIBUTIONS BY CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX B.

14 16 16 16 60 76

.

.

.

.

WORKING PAPER FORMS

95 255

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1

Frequency of Sightings by Year for Object, Unit, and All Sightings

17

Figure 2

Distribution of Evaluations of Object, Unit, and All Sightings for All Years

18

Figure 3

Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for All Years With Comparisons of Each Year for Each Evaluation Group

19

Figure 4

Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for All Years and Each Year

20

Figure 5

Distribution of Object 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 Frequency of Object Sightings and Unknown Object Evaluations by Months, 1947-1952

22

Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 9

23

Distribution of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups With Evaluation Distributions for Each Group

24

Distribution of Object Sightings Among the Four. Sighting Reliability Groups for All Years and Each Year

25

Figure 10 Distribution of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, Segregated 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 Seen per Sighting. With Evaluation Distribution for Each Group . . . . . Figure 13 Distribution of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting With Evaluation Distribution for Each Duration Group . ,

111

.

.

28

29


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Paiie Figure 14 Distribution of Object Sightings by Months Among the Eight Duration Groups for All Years

30

Figure 15 Distribution of Object Sightings by Shape of Object(s) Reported With Evaluation Distribution for Each Shape Group

-31

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,

34

1947-1952

.

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

Figure 21 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Duration,

36

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 Versus Total Figure 25 Comparison of Versus Total

40

Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Astronomical Object Sightings Less Astronomical Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Aircraft Object Sightings Less Aircraft

Figure 26 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Balloon Versus Total Object Sightings Less Balloon . . . . .

.

.

41 .

.

42

Figure 27 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Insufficient Information Versus Total Object Sightings Less Insufficient Information

43

Figure 28 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Other Versus Total Object Sightings Less Other

44

Figure 29 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Unknown Versus Total 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 Figure 31 Frequency of Object, Unit, and All Sightings Within the U. S., Subdivisions of One Degree of Latitude and Longitude .

-46

1947-1952, by 47

Figure 32 Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for the Twelve Regional Areas of the U. S., With the Strategic Areas Located

48

Figure 33 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central East Region â&#x20AC;˘

49

Figure 34 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Midwest Region '

50

Figure 35 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Farwest Region

51

Figure 36 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Midwest Region

52

Figure 37 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South West Region . . . . . . . ' .

53

IV


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

'

(Continued) Page Figure 38 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Farwest Region

54

Figure 39 Diagram of a Celestial Sphere

56

Figure 40 Frequency of Object Sightings by Angle of Elevation of the Sun, Intervals of 10 Degrees of Angle

.

â&#x20AC;¢

, 57

Figure 41 Frequency of Object Sightings by Local Sun Time, Intervals of One Hour

59

Table

60

Table

I Object Sightings II Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Color

62

Table

III Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Number

63

Table

IV Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Shape

64

Table Table

V Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Duration of Observation VI Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Speed

65 b6

Table VII Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Light Brightness

67

Table VIII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Color

70

Table Table Table

IX Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Number X Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns* Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Shape

.71 72

XI Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Duration of Observation

73

Table XII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Speed

74

Table XIII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Light Brightness

75

v and vi


_


SUMMARY

Reports of unidentified aerial <5bjects (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. V

In order to discover any pertinent trends or patterns inherent in the data, and to evaluate or explain any trends or patterns 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 categorizing 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 comprised (1) a systematic attempt to ferret out any distinguishing characteristics inherent in the data or any of their segments, (2) a concentrated study of any trends or patterns found, and (3) an attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observations of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers". The first step in the analysis of the data revealed the existence of certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified and those not identified. Statistical methods of testing were applied -which indicated a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant. An attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observations of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers" necessitated a thorough re-examination and re-evaluation of cases of objects not originally identified; this led to the conclusion that the probability was very small. v

vn


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 was a complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of physical, matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.

vm


INTRODUCTION

In June, 1947, Kenneth Arnold, a Boise, Idaho, businessman and private pilot, publicly reported the now-famous sighting of a chainlike formation of disc-shaped objects near Mount Rainier, Washington. Resulting newspaper publicity of this incident caught the public interest, and, shortly thereafter, a rash of reports of unidentified aerial objects spawned the term "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 definitions have been offered, one of the best being that originated by Dr. J. Allen Hynek3 Director of the Emerson McMillin Observatory of The Ohio State University, who has taken a scientific interest in the problem of unidentified aerial objects since 1949. Dr. Hynek1 s definition of the term is "any aerial phenomenon or sighting that remains unexplained to the viewer at least long enough for him to write a report about it"\l). Dr. Hynek, elaborating on his definition, says, "Each flying saucer, so defined, has associated with it a probable lifetime. It wanders in the field of public inspection like an electron in a field of ions, until ' captured1 by an explanation which puts an end to its existence as a 'flying s a u c e r ' " ^ ) . 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 explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World. This would include such items as natural phenomena that are not yet completely understood, ps^cjioliigical phejiorne,na, or intruder aircraft of a type that may be possessed by some source in large enough numbers so that more than one independent mission may have been flown and reported. Thus, these phenomena are of the type'which should have been 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 summer of 1952, when the frequency of reports of sightings reached a peak, possibly stimulated by several'articles on the subject in leading popular magazines. Early in 1952, the Air Force 1 s cumulative study and analysis of reported sightings indicated that the majority of reports could be accounted for as misinterpretations of known objects (suchas meteors, balloons, or aircraft), a few as the result of mild hysteria, and a very few as the result of unfamiliar meteorological phenomena and light aberrations. However, (1) Hynek, J. A., "Unusual Aerial Phenomena", Journal of the Optical Society of America, 43 (4), pp 311-314, April, 1953. 1


a significant number of fairly complete reports by reliable observers r e mained unexplained. Although no evidence existed that unexplained reports of sightings constituted a physical threat to the security of the U. S. , in 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 submitted for analysis and evaluation more than tripled, the result of the unprecedented increase in observations during 1952. Accordingly, this study is based on a number of reports considered to be large enough for a p_re^lirrmmÂŁy^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 1 ? " . 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 unidentified 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 sighting reports into a form suitable 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 arid numerous specialized fields. All records and working papers of this study have been carefully preserved in an orderly fashion suitable for ready reference. These


records include condensations of all individual sighting reports, and the IBM cards used in vaTious phases of the study.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DATA

Reports of sightings were received by the U. S. Air Force ftom a representative cross secjtion 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 members of the Armed Forces. Reports varied in. length from a few sentences stating that a "flying saucer" had been sighted, to those containing thousands of words, including description, speculation, and advice on how to handle the "problem of the 'flying saucers'". Some reports were of high 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 through regular military channels, from June, 1947, until the middle of 1952. A second type of data consisted of letters reporting sightings sent by civilian observers directly to ATIC. Most of these direct communications were dated subsequent to April 30, 1952, and are believed to be the result of a suggestion by a popular magazine that future reports be directed to the Air Technical Intelligence Center. As could be expected, a large number of letters was received following this publicity. A third type of data was that contained in questionnaire forms completed by the observer himself. A questionnaire form, developed during the course of this study, was mailed by ATIC to a s_ele_cjted group of writers of direct letters with the request that the form be completed and returned. Approximately 1,000 responses were received by ATIC. In general, the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates of physical characteristics rather than of precise measurements. Furthermore, most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years. Both of these factors introduced an element of doubt concerning the validity of the original data, and increased its subjectivity. This was intensified by the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, distances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy. In spite of these limitations, methods of statistical analysis of such reports in sufficiently large groups are valid. The danger lies in the possibility of


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 thojight 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 r e ceived through military channels or in the form of observer-completed questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from unquestionably 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" had 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 interrogation 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 program 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 transfer of data to a mechanized computation system; (3) an orderly means of relating the original data to all subsequent forms; and (4) a consistent procedure 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 200-5vW and Air Force Form 112(1) w e r e 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 Air Force Form 112 lists pertinent questions to be answered in regard to an unidentified-dbject sighting. (2) Air Force Letter 200-5 places responsibility with the Air Force for the investigation, reporting, and analysis of unidentified aerial objects. This letter is dated 29 April 1952.


future, it was 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 interrogator1 s guide, and as a form for --the observer himself to complete when personal interrogation was not possible or practicable. Ideally, a questionnaire for the purposes required should contain questions pertaining to all technical details considered to be essential for the statistical approach, and should serve to obtain a maximum of information 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 discrete facts, an integrated written description of a sighting would be r e 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 observer1 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 identification 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 reduction of reports to discrete data, and was immediately subjected to extensive 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 r e turned. Of the first 300 questionnaires returned during July and August, 1952, 168 were analyzed by a consulting psychologist. On the basis of this analysis, 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 developed and approved. Accordingly, experience was obtained with each form in relation to past data, an important factor in the improvement of the quality and completeness of the later reports included in this study.


Coding System, and Work Sheet

The reduction of non-numerical data to numerical form is mandatory in the machine handling of data. Thus, the selection of the IBM punchedcard system for analysis of data forced the adoption ~>f a master coding plan. Since it was impracticable to transfer detailed data of an exact nature from 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 preliminary analysis of data, and was reviewed by the panel of consultants before use. It was recognized that this system of coding would be the heart of the analysis, that is, the completeness of the facility for translation of data could make or break the study. Accordingly, eyery con.ce.ivable factor that might influence the identification of unidentified aerial objectswas_ included, together with a wide range of variations within each facjtor. The original coding system (with minor corrections) was used throughout the translation of the original data with marked success. A copy of this system, called CODES, is enclosed as Exhibit B4, Appendix B. To facilitate the preparation of the punched-card abstract, an intermediate form called the WORK SHEET (later, the CARD BIBLE) was developed. Referenced to both the data from the questionnaire and the system of report identification, the WORK SHEET permitted an orderly transcription of data simultaneously by several people. In conjunction with the CODES, the WORK SHEET was used during the reduction of the original data to code form necessary for transfer to punched cards. A sample is included as Exhibit B5, Appendix B. After the analysis was under way, it became apparent that the mechanics of machine processing could be improved by incorporating in the IBM card system group classifications of certain factors requiring more than one column for discrete expression. In addition, the inclusion of certain data relating to the evaluation and bearing of the sun with respect to the observer was considered necessary. Finally, a critical examination of certain segments of the data indicated the need for the definition of a new factor relating to the maneuvers of the object or objects sighted. Prior to the start of the analytical study, it had been assumed that a combination 6f stated factors would, by inference, define the maneuver pattern. All these additions have been incorporated in a revised set of CODES and CARD BIBLE that are illustrated as Exhibits B6 and B7, Appendix B. However, at the time that the maneuver factor was determined to be critical, it was physically impracticable to make the required definitions and re-evaluate the original data. Therefore, no code for maneuverability has been included in the CODES, CARD BIBLE, or IBM cards.


/v

Identification of Working Papers

The actualjreduction of d.ata to IBM jaujijchedj^c_a.rd form presented a problem 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 number of reports of sightings in a single folder varied from 1 to over 20. Under these conditions, there was a great possibility for incorrect transcription of data, duplication of transcription, or misplacement of intermediate 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 subserial number (minor), was adequate to fulfill these requirements. To expedite handling of the data, temporary serial numbers were assigned until each report had been evaluated and the phenomenon had been placed in a category of identification. The use of temporary serial numbers 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 conclusively that the sources of the two documents were one and the same. Factors of the o b s e r v e r ' s location, date and time of observation, description of the phenomenon, and finally, the name of the observer were considered. In this manner, the assignment of major serial and minor subserial 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Any witness reporting to a proper authority that he had seen unidentified aerial objects. SIGHTING

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; The report or gÂŁoup of reports of the same observe^phenomenon that remained unidentified to the observer or observers, at least until reported.


SINGLE OBSERVATION - A SIGHTING consisting of a single report from (1) one OBSERVER with no knowledge of additional OBSERVERS of the same phenomenon, 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 OBSERVER. 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 0501 1001 1501 2001 2501

to to to to to to

0500 1000 1500 2000 2500 4900

reserved reserved reserved reserved reserved reserved

for for for for for for

1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952

While this scheme would serve to identify any individual sighting, identification 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 OBSERVATIONS, the major serial number followed by a series of two-digit numbers 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 1132.01 1132.02 1132.03 1132.04 1132.05

representing representing representing representing representing representing

the best report and observer an additional observer an additional observer an additional observer an additional observer 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 of an analysis based on one report for each sighting -was valid (the concept of UNIT SIGHTINGS), a presentation of an analysis based on one report for each 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, location of observers, duration of observations, and range, bearing, track direction, 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 conclusive enough to justify consolidation of the reports). Following the determination of OBJECT SIGHTINGS, a series of serial numbers, called the INCIDENT SERIAL NUMBERS, was established to facilitate any future study of a specific object sighting. Each reported sighting that relates to an OBJECT SIGHTING received the same incident serial number, a four-digit code paralleling the major serial number series.


For machine manipulation, it was desirable to be able to select the sample of cards (all reports, all sightings, or all phenomena) to be included in a particular study. The concept of a SIGHTING IDENTIFICATION NUMBER was evolved to fill this desire. Using one column of the IBM card, and the correlated working papers, the code for this function was developed. Multiple punching elirninated the need to use several columns for discrete expression of the variations., Selection of the proper number in this column thus permitted selection of the desired sample of cards.

Evaluation of Individual Reports

of sighting reports was recognized as a crucial step in the preparation of data for statistical treatment; inconsistent evaluations would have invalidated any conclusions to be derived from this study. A method of evaluation was, therefore, determined simultaneously with the development of the questionnaire, the coding system, and the work sheet. It is emphasized that all phases of evaluation, even including the tedious preparation of the original data for statistical treatment, were entrusted only to selected, specially qualified scientists and engineers. Evaluation consisted of a standardized procedure to be followed for: (1) the deduction of discrete facts, from data which depended on human impressions rather than scientific measurements, (2) the rating of the observer and his report as determined from available information, and (3) the determination of the probable identification of the phenomenon observed. Categories of identification, established upon the basis of previous experience, were as follows: Balloon Astronomical Aircraft Light phenomenon Birds Clouds, dust, etc. Insufficient information Psychological manifestations Unknown Other The first step in evaluation, the deduction of discrete facts from subjective data, required certain calculations based on the information available in the sighting report. An example was the finding of the approximate angular velocity and acceleration of the object or objects sighted. Care was taken during this phase of the work to insure against ^he deduction of discrete facts not warranted by the original data. Thus, even though there was a complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of

10


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. I In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a factual level failed completely, the report was eliminated from further consideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis. About 800 reports of sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner. Most of these reports were rejected because they were extxexoely nej^uljous; the rest were rejected because they contained highly conflj^cjting 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 information, 'considered in relation to one another: (1)

The exp_e_xience 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 compljeteness 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. â&#x20AC;˘ The third step in the process of evaluation, the attempted identification of the object or objects sighted, was done twice, fi^gj^by the individual who made the transcription of the data (the preliminary identification), and later (the final identification) by a conference of four persons, two representatives from ATIC and two from the parcel of consultants. Although representatives of ATIC participated in making the final identifications, it must be emphasized that any previous identification of a sighting made by 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 misinterpretatiorxs of common objects or natural phenomena. Accordingly, categories for objects most frequently present in the air were provided. Balloons, aircraft, astronomical bodies (such as meteors), birds, and clouds or dust were recognized as major categories. The less frequent, but common objects, such as kites, fireworks, flares, rockets, contrails, and 11


meteorological phenomena like small tornadoes, were collected into a category called OTHER. A separate category for the uncommon natural phenomena associated with light reflections or refractions, such as mirages, sun dogs, inversion-layer images, and distortions caused by airborne ice, was established with the title of LIGHT PHENOMENON. Categories for INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS, and UNKNOWN were 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 consideration, there was some es-s^ui±ijJLitem of information mis sing, 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 INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known olbject or phenomenon; PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS - This identification category was assigned to a report when, although it was well established that the observer 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 imagination were the most common mental ab_£-E— 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 anyjenown 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 according to two degrees of certainty, designated "Certain" and "Doubtful". 12


A "Certain" identification indicated a minimum amount of doubt regarding the validity of the evaluation. By "rule-of-thumb" reasoning, the probability 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 evaluation, 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 personnel 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 fllgfrt_plans of aircraft, records of ballQjan_r_elÂŁ_as_e_s, weather conditions, and an astronomical almanac with the reported sighting. The procedure followed in making final identifications deserves explanation 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 A TIC 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. If that person arrived at 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 was considered later by everyone participating in the conference until a 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 r e quired on that report before it was considered finished. A group decision was necessary on all reports finally recorded as UNKNOWN, regardless of what the preliminary identification had been. In cases where a group decision was not made within a reasonable time, the report was put aside and later submitted to certain members of the panel of consultants for their opinions. If, after this, disagreement continued to exist, the report of the sighting was identified as UNKNOWN.

13


*N("-y

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 subjective data in reports of sightings of unidentified aerial objects. It was recognized that an approach to this problem could best be made by a systematic 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 a 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 investigation of the possibility of conceiving a model of a "flying saucer" from descriptions reported, are discussed in sections entitled "Frequency and Percentage Distributions by Characteristics", "Advanced Study of the Data" and "The 'Flying Saucer1 Model".

Frequency and Percentage Distributions by 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


f 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 subjective, or the incompleteness of the original reports would seriously reduce the sample of a specific variable. Preliminary tabulations of various sortings substantiated the impossibility 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.

m

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 FIGHTINGS, could lead to misrepresentation 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 to avoid trie 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: ALL SIGHTINGS (all reports) UNIT SIGHTINGS, all observers UNIT SIGHTINGS, single observer UNIT SIGHTINGS, multiple observers OBJECT SIGHTINGS

3,20 1 cards 2,554 cards 2,232 cards 322 cards 2,199 cards

The preliminary tabulations indicated that the samples based on UNIT SIGHTINGS, single observer, and UNIT SIGHTINGS, multiple observers, would not add materially to this study. Accordingly, although the frequency 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 Al 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,

15


t \

Graphical Presentation

f 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 concentration of reports of OBJECT SIGHTINGS in an area. No other interpretation of the tables or remaining charts was deemed necessary.

Advanced Study of the Data

It was recognized that the lack of any patte-rns or trends, as shown by the tabulations and graphs, provided an insecure basis for drawing definite ^Conclusions. Accordingly, shortly before the sorting and tabulation program 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 The 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 position 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 information needed for this calculation was available on the deck of IBM cards.

16


1947 117= /Q94 8

%/ 143 = 63%

m VI952, 1501 = 68.3%

<i949,X9-e% 186 = 8.5 %, I95O 209=

1952 1722= 74% 1952 2018 = 630%

Object sightings 2199 =100%

1951 160 = 5.0%

All sightings 3201 = 100%

Unit sightings 2554=100%

FIGURE I FREQUENCY OF SIGHTINGS BY YEAR FOR OBJECT, UNIT, AND ALL SIGHTINGS A-7479

17


Object sightings 2199=100%

All sightings 3201 = 100%

Unit sightings 2554=100%

FIGURE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF EVALUATIONS OF OBJECT, UNIT, AND ALL SIGHTINGS FOR ALL YEARS A-748O

18


Unknown 4 3 4 = 19.7%

'952

Astronomical 479 =21.8 % 1947-51

Other 233 = 10.3%

Clnsuf.

Aircraft \ 474« 21.5%

info./

I

\ 240=10.9%/

/ /

w

Balloon 339 = 15.4%

1952

\

y

\

/

\\9* x \

S

FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY EVALUATION FOR ALL YEARS WITH COMPARISONS OF EACH YEAR FOR EACH EVALUATION GROUP A-7481

19


100

No. of object sightings 2(99 79

121

1501

1951

1952

Ilnsuf. — —info. c

<u

O

a.

All years

1947

1948

1949

1950

FIGURE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY EVALUATION FOR ALL YEARS AND EACH YEAR A-7 4 82


No. of object sightings 00

90

70

55

83

127

129

183

638

407

166

125

10,6

105

•a!

100 90

in

•=

80

80

70

70

§60

60

o

CO

.c

c o

50

50

o 4 0 o

40

UJ

30

c o - w. 0)

a.

30

^

20

20

^ 10

10

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

^

June

July

Aug

Sepf

Oct

Nov

Dec

FIGURE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY EVALUATION WITHIN MONTHS FOR ALL YEARS A-7483


30

20

1

1

0

10

10

Astronomical |

All years 947 948 949 950 9 51 95 2

30

i

i

1

1

1

20

i i

I j

1 Airc raft

1

All years 947 1948 949 950 95 1

1

I

I

I

I

[

1

c1

952

I

Ball 3ons All years 947 19 48 949 950 95 1 95 2

1 •

i

|

i

I i

i Insuf. info.

1

1

All years 1947 1948 1949 1950 195 1 195 2

rI

C

I Unknown

r

All years 1947 1948 1949 1950 195 1 1952

1 I 3

1

I

—"

OH »er

1

tz

All years I 1

20

10

Certain

19 47 1948 1949

1950

i

30

-

1 0 Per Cent

195 1 1952

10 20 Doubtful

30

FIGURE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY CERTAIN AND DOUBTFUL EVALUATIONS FOR ALL YEARS AND EACH YEAR A-74 8 4

22

• v


* • < * ,

^|jfc

en

10 Unknown object sightings \ J F M A M J J A S O N o | j F M A M J J A S O N O | j F M A M J J A S O N o | j F M A M J J A S O N O | j ' F M A M J

J A S O N O | j F M A M J J A S O N D

FIGURE 7 FREQUENCY OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS AND UNKNOWN OBJECT EVALUATIONS BY MONTHS, 1947-1952

c-7485


Unknown Unknown

nomical

100% /Aircraft

Aircraft

\/Excellent Insuf. info. = 4.2 %

757= 34.5%

Doubtful Unknown

Astro- N nomical 74=23.0%

nomical

154=19.4% /97*I2.2%

info.

/ircraft i98=24.9

Other

V '00%/Aircraft

111 =

40%/Balloon 131 = 16.5%

Balloon

Insuf. info.

166 = 22.0%

127 = 16.8%

27 = 3.6% FIGURE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SIGHTING RELIABILITY GROUPS WITH EVALUATION DISTRIBUTIONS FOR EACH GROUP A-74B6

24


No. of object sightings 2199

100 90

43

79

186

169

1501

121

100

Excellent V

"ft

90

4

\ \

(

. •

*

\

i

60

80 Good

70

70

V \

/

1

\

/ 1

<_ 60 c

60

1 1 I

0) —

U 50

ro

Q.

40 30

Doubtful

1

\

1 1 1

-

40

'

\

\

30

\

1 1

1

\ \

1 1

20 \ \

-

Poor

0

\ )

1 1 1

'•

\ \

20

\

1

\

10

50

1

H 10 -

t

1

All years

1947

1948

1949

1950

951

FIGURE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SljGHTINGS AMONG THE FOUR SIGHTING GROUPS FOR ALL YEARS AND EACH YEAR

1952

RELIABILITY A-74 87


HI

X X X

1

y, 4

>A

X

25 45iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;

50

75

Per Cent

Excellent

Good

Doubtful

Poor

FIGURE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SIGHTINGS BY SIGHTING RELIABILITY GROUPS. SEGREGATED BY -__-_z MILITARY AND CIVILIAN OBSERVERS WITH EVALUATION DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH SEGREGATION I A-7486


100 90

100 90

Unknown

80

80

70

70

60

_lnsuf. _ -info. ~

60 c a>

c

o Ik.

50

Balloon

50

0> CL

V.

a. 40

40 30 20

i

O

10

Aircraft

30 20

v Astronomical

10

r

White 23.5%

Metallic 17.7%

Not stated Orange Red 12.3% 10.0% 8.1%

Other

28.4%

FIGURE II DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY REPORTED COLORS OF OBJECTCS) WITH EVALUATION DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH COLOR GROUP f

A-7469

27


100-

-100

80-

-80

60-

3-10 objects

-60

11 or more objects

40-

-40

Unknown Others Insuf. info

Astronomical

FIGURE 12 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY NUMBER OF OBJECTS SEEN PER SIGHTING WITH EVALUATION DISTRI BUTION FOR EACH GROUP A-7490

28


1009080" 7060c O

ro

oAstronomical> Not stated 24.9%

II Aircraft ||

y////// Balloon^

Insuf. info.

cO f h p r/V

L

Unknown

'//////A

0ver30mir 7.8 % 6-30 mi n 17.1 %

50" 403 020100.

61 sec5min 16.7% 31-60 sec 6.8 % 11-3.0 sec 8.5 % b-TO sec 5. I % 5 sec or less 13.0% Duration 0

20

30

40 50 60 Evaluations in Per Cent

70

90

100

FIGURE 13 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY DURATION OF SIGHTING WITH EVALUATION DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH DURATION GROUP , A-7491


No. of object sightings 70

100

55

83

127

129

183

638

407

166

125

106

I 05

100 90

90 Not

stated

80

£80 JZ

u

70

ro

uver

0>

60

§60

6-30 min

v> SI

oi

O

50

c 9) 50 O a>

«

0.

o 61 sec o 40 <I to o fO

40

5 min

UJ

o ,30

V

30

M-50

c O 20

10

sec

20

5 sec ohd less

• I

10 0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

FIGURE 14 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY MONTHS AMONG THE EIGHT DURATION A-7492 GROUPS FOR ALL YEARS • • - • &


10090-

23.5% \AstronomicaK

N\\\\\\W

Not stated

. 80-

604C

•A-

Aircraft I

Balloon/ Insuf. info:

Unknown -

ooooax /s

11.2 % 70-

1

^

^

\

Other Flame

4.8%

.enticularconico or teardrop

d)

O

50-

£

4030-

WT

Elliptical

Wo \ \\ >

\

20-

A

47.0 7<A 100_

Shape i

10

20

30

40

-50

60

i

70

i

80

90

Evaluation in Per Cent FIGURE 15 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SHAPE OF OBJECTS) REPORTED WITH

EVALUATION DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH SHAPE .GROUP A-7493

100


100-

Astronomical 90-

Speed

8 0 - not-stated 37.8 % 70-

/ if

Aircraft,

VZ77,Insuf.

PB( Balloon

V2

itiiiiiiiilii / / /

6050Q.

v/,

WSAA

-Unknown-

H

Over

400 mph

<v CM

-iiKe

Info.

40-

24.9%

30-

100-400 mph "10.9%

20-

Less than 1.00 mph ftp %

10-

Stationary 13.7%

0_

Speed 30 . 40 5 0 60 Evaluation in Per Cent FIGURE 16 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY REPORTED SPEED OF OBJECT(S) WITH EVALUATION DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH SPEED GROUP A-7494


No. of all sighting 3201

100-

205

117

164

2018

160

306

Location «

90-

• s

not stated

O

\

\

\

\

1 1 1

\

\ \

S TO-

\ \

c £

90

•8 0 70

1

\

Outdoors

-

s

1 1 1 1 1 1

g" 80-

100

•60

604

= 50< i^ 4 0 «-— v

30-

«

20-

1.0-

50

/ / / /

&

•40

O

'' In bldg. /

/

K

/

\

\

^ \

\

\

•3 0 \ \

•2 0

In plane / '

***

• 10

In car All yeors

.0 1947

1948

949

1950

1951

1952

FIGURE 17 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SIGHTINGS BY OBSERVER LOCATION FOR ALL YEARS AND E A C H Y E A R


Total Less Unknown Per Cent 30 i

25

20

15

10

Unknown Per Cent 10

5

15

20

25

30

White

Metallic

Not stated f

*

Orange

Red

Other

FIGURE 18 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY COLOR,1947-1952 A-7496


..mum.

Total Less Unknown Per Cent 1

.

80

70

60-

1

1

1

50

40

1

II

30

20 1

Unknown Per Cent 10

10 |

_^^l

20

30

1

1

40 'I

50

60

70

80

II

1

1

One'

r

Two

Three to ten

Oi oi

Eleven or more

â&#x20AC;¢

Not stated

FIGURE 19 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN. OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER SIGHTING, 1947-1952 A-7497

1


Total Less Unknown Per Cent 40 i

35 i

30 i

25 i

20 i

15

Unknown Per Cent

10

i

i

5

0

0

5

10

15 20 I

I

25 I

30 35 I

I

40 L_

Stationary Less than 100 mph 100 to 400 mph

More than 4 0 0 mph Meteor-like

Not stated

FIGURE 20 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SPEED, 1947-1952 \

'

A-749§


30

Total Less Unknown

Unknown

Per Cent 15 20

Per Cent 15 20

25

i

5

10

i

10

i

25 i

30 i

5 seconds or less

6-10 seconds 11-30 seconds 31-60 seconds 61 seconds 5 minutes

6-30 minutes More than 3 0 minutes Not stated

FIGURE 21 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY DURATION , 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 5 2 A-74 99


Total Less Unknown

Unknown

Per Cent

Per Cent

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 i 5i i ii \ i i i \

5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

\

Elliptical

r 00

Rocket and aircraft Meteor or comet Lenticular, conical or teardrop Flame

Other shapes Not stated

FIGURE 22

COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY SHAPE, 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 5 2 _ A-7500


60

Total Less Unknown Per Cent 50 40 30 20

10

0

10

20

Unknown Per Cent 30 40

50

60

Sunlight on mirror or aluminum Sunlight on plaster, stone or soil Brighter than moon to

Like moon Duller than moon Not stated

I FIGURE 23 COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY LIGHT BRIGHTNESS, 1947-1952 A-75 01


40

Total Less Astronomical; Per Cent 10 30 20

Astronomical Per Cent 10 20 30

c

€ Z

I

January February

I

I

41 I

-

HI

March April May June July

i

August September October November

i

December FIGURE 24 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS ASTRONOMICAL VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS ASTRONOMICAL A-7502


f Total Less Aircraft 40 i

30

Per Cent 20 i

10

10

c) January

:

February

i

i

Aircraft Per Cent 20 i

30 i

4 i

March

April

i

May June July August September October November

m

December

FIGURE 25

COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS AIRCRAFT VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS AIRCRAFT A-7303


Total Less Balloon Per Cent 30 10 20

40 1

1

10

1

Balloon Per Cent 20

30

40

January February March April

â&#x20AC;¢

3 3

May June July

-

August

c

September October November December

FIGURE 26

COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS BALLOON VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS BALLOON A-7S0 4


Insufficient

Total Less Insufficient Information Per Cent 40 30 20 10

c)

10 i

Information

Per Cent 20 i

30 i

-

4

i

January

C

February MMBW

3

March April

1

M5y June • July

1

August September

1

October • • • • • •

]

November December

NMMMI

FIGURE 27 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION A-7505


Total Less Other Per Cent 40

30

20

(0

c)

-

Other Per Cent 10 i

20 I

I

30

4

i

•••MM

January February •

March April May June July August

i

September October November

u

December ?•

FIGURE 28 I

COMPARISON OF MONTHLY1 DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS OTHER VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS OTHER A-7506


Total Less Unknown s Per Cent

Unknown Per Cent

N

X

FIGURE 29 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS EVALUATED AS UNKNOWN VERSUS TOTAL OBJECT SIGHTINGS LESS UNKNOWN A-7907


Number of objects

Color

Shape

Speed

Duration

FIGURE 30 CHARACTERISTICS PROFILES OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY TOTAL SAMPLE, KNOWN EVALUATIONS, AND INDIVIDUAL KNOWN EVALUATIONS, WITH UNKNOWN EVALUATIONS SUPERIMPOSED B-7508

46


* * > •

IW.

125°

120°

115°

110°

105°

25° . KEY: IN EACH SUBDIVISION THE TOP FIGURE INDICATES THE FREOUENCV OF ALL SIGHTINGS, THE MIDDLE FIGURE UNIT SIGHTINGS, AND THE BOTTOM FIGURE OBJECT SIGHTINGS

FIGURE 31

FREQUENCY OF OBJECT, UNIT, AND ALL SIGHTINGS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES 1947-1952, BY SUBDIVISIONS OF ONE DEGREE OF LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE


oo

FIGURE 32

DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY EVALUATION FOR THE TWELVE REGIONAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE STRATEGIC AREAS LOCATED (STRATEGIC AREAS WERE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF CONCENTRATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS)


/

//Other /12.3% Insuf., info.

16.2 % Netf/wrk/ 106 object sighting Insuf. Info I Balloon 1.6% \ 21.3% /

61 obiect sightings

Aircroft 30.5%

Balance of Central East Region 81 object sightings

Aircraft 29.5%

Washingto 146 object sightl

FIGURE 3 3 COMPARISON OF EVALUATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS IN THE STRATEGIC AREAS OF THE CENTRAL EAST REGION if B-75M


Dayton 144 object sighting!

"7

O

Balance of Central Midwest Region 164 object sightings

FIGURE

34- COMPARISON OF EVALUATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS IN THE STRATEGIC AREAS OF THE CENTRAL MIDWEST REGION B - 7 5I2

V


i 12/5 '43

Other \ % 19 4 % Aircraft 23.6 % Insuf. info. 16.1%

Balloon 22.6 %

Insuf. info. 18.4 7. / \

San Francisco

Aircraft 36.9%

Balance of Central Farwest Region

93 object sightings

38 object sightings

>

FIGURE 35 COMPARISON OF EVALUATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS IN THE STRATEGIC AREAS OF THE CENTRAL FARWEST REGION B-7513

51


CJ1

ro

o San Antonio 36 object sightings

Balance of South Midwest Region

FIGURE 36 COMPARISON OF EVALUATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS IN THE STRATEGIC AREAS OF THE SOUTH MIDWEST REGION D


98 object sightings

""^-Albuquerque ©

Unknown 25.6% Aircraft 20.8% Balloon 20.0% Ol

Unknown 21.4 7.

Balance of South West Region

Astro 42.9%

125 object sightings

I loon Alrcraft 16.4 7.

2%/

FIGURE 37 COMPARISON OF EVALUATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS IN THE STRATEGIC AREAS OF THE SOUTH WEST REGION

*''s


II 5

Il/O

FIGURE 3 8 COMPARISON OF EVALUATION OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS IN THE STRATEGIC AREAS OF THE SOUTH FARWEST REGION B-7516

54


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 2J_ represents the observer 1 s zenith, js represents the sun, and N_ represents the north celestial pole. Using the date and time of the observation, the longitude and declination (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 Figure 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 trigonometry. Thus, cos Z"S = 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 depression 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 obtained 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^heir inverses were obtained from a deck of 9,000 IBM cards on which seven-place Peter 1 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.

V

&

r

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). •

-

.

.

.

5

5


fteWffSfflSf!^-^^

Equator

Horizon

FIGURE 3 9 DIAGRAM OF A CELESTIAL SPHERE A-7S3S

56


300 275 250 ject Sight ings

225 Suniset

200 175 150

XI

O Ol

°

Numl

J5

125

All object sightings

100 Unknown object, sightings

Sun rise

75 50 25 -90

-60

-30

+ 30

+60

+90

+60

+30

-30

-60

Angle of Elevation of The Sun FIGURE 4 0 FREQUENCY OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY ANGLE OF ELEVATION OF THE SUN, INTERVALS OF 10 DEGREES OF ANGLE A-7336

-90


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 southernmost latitude of the U. S. is greater than the declination of.,the sun at the summer solstice, so that it would be impossible for the sun to reach the zenith qr 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: (l) 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. i

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 were 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 constructed 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

1


jtt

i,

300 i

275 250

S 22 5 JC

200

0)

u

175

o 150 .Midnight

Midnight

:

o Noon

125 100

MM ODjecT signnngs

75 50

v

Unknown object sightings •

— 11 _

j

// •

\

i

r—^ i

25

1

!.

i

^F"l 1 1 h i i \ i i i • • , i | i i

0

0300

0600

0900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

Local Sun'Time FIGURE 41 FREQUENCY OF OBJECT SIGHTINGS BY LOCAL SUN TIME, INTERVALS OF ONE HOUR A-7537


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

Identification

OBJECT SIGHTINGS Angle of Elevation Group 2 4 3 5

1

Balloon Astronomical Aircraft Light phenomena Insufficient information UNKNOWN Other Total

156 52 187 8 72 134 .64 673

28 43 49 4 26 25 12 *

17

6 23 2 12 14

187

82

6

7

0 9 5 0 2

2

83 236 144 25

40 118

76

28

150 50

86 36

6 3

2 0 0 7 7

764

375

25

24

60 7

6

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 determining which of the UNKNOWNS in Group 1 might possibly be aircraft 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 frequency 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 • . ' - • •

6

0

ff

i


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 probability that there is no difference in the make-up of the two distributions being measured. r 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 jroup. (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 individual 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 sightings for each characteristic. The tabulations of KNOWNS and UNKNOWNS against the six characteristics 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.â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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. ' 61


TABLE II

CHI SQUARE TEST O|F KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF COLOR Adjusted Number of KNQWNS (K)

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

67 195

100 77 51 42 36 31 32 17 48

112 76 62 49 33 31 14 26 31

0 10. 13 4. 76 6.02

1765

434

434

26. 15

Number of KNOWNS

Color White Metallic Not stated Orange Red Yellow Green Blue Other Total

405 313 209 172 146 128 130

Degrees of freedom

(K-n)' K

1.44 0.01 2. 37 1. 17 0.25

8

15. 5 20. 1

5% 1%

62

,

=


£?

TABLE III

CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER

Number of Objects P e r Sighting

Number of KNOWNS

1 2

1339 159

3-10 11 or more Not stated Total

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

185

" 329 39 46

41 41

10 10

1765

434

X2,

Number of

(K-n)2

UNKNOWNS (n)

K

297

37 70 25 5 434

l

3. 0. 12. 22. 2.

11 10 52 50 50

40.73

D e g r e e s of f r e e d o m 9. 5 13. 3

5% 1%

63


TABLE IV

Shape Elliptical Rocket and aircraft Meteor or comet Teardrop, lenticular, or conical Flame Other Not stated Total

CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF SHAPE

Number of KNOWNS

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

X2, (K-n) 2 K

838"

206

195"

80

20 14 25

33 4 22

0. 59 8.45 7. 14 0.36

400

24 47 98

10 54 116

8. 17 1.04 3.30

1765

434

434

29.05

55 103

96 193

D e g r e e s of f r e e d o m 12.6 16.8

5% 1%

64


TABLE V

Duration of Observation

CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF DURATION OF OBSERVATION

Number of KNOWNS

5 sec or less 6-10 sec 11-30 sec 31-60 sec 61 sec-5 min 6-30 min Over 30 min Not stated Total

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

X

2

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

(K-n) 2 21.39 0. 17

259-"

64

92

23 38 26

27 21 33 42

66

99

K

153 108 269' 305 135 444

75 33

71 37l

109

104

16. 50 0.21 . 0.48 0.23

1765

434

434

49.49

0.66 9.85

Degrees of freedom #

5% 1%

14. 1 18. 5

65 it I


TABLE VI

Speed Stationary L e s s than 100 mph 100 to 400 mph Over 400 mph Meteor-like Not stated Total

CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF SPEED

Number of KNOWNS

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

(K-n) Z K

695

20 171

53 26 58 145 " 16 136

1.05 3.79 3.76 21.37 0.80 7. 16

1765

434

434

37. 93

249 154 181 403'" 83

61 38 45

99

D e g r e e s of freedom 11.1 15. 1

5% 1%

66


TABLE VII

CHI SQUARE TEST OF KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF LIGHT BRIGHTNESS

Light Brightness Sunlight on mirror Sunlight on aluminum Sunlight on plaster, stone, or soil Brighter than moon Like moon or duller than moon Not stated Total

Number of KNOWNS

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

X2 (K- n ») 2

K

14 28 16

0. 82 2. 19 0. 4 7

17

61 22

0. 55 1. 4 7

1150

283

293

0. 3 5

1765

434

434

5. 8 5

47 151 76

11 37

27 3-

67

68

19

-

Degrees of freedom 11. 1 15. 1

5%

67


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 following 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 proportions than the group identified as KNOWNS. (That i s , 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 a r e astronomical, and are due mostly to the green fireballs reported from 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


(4) Duration of observation Here there is an excess of KNOWNS in the less-than5-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 characteristic 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 1, 000 to 2, 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 interesting 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 XIII, 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 brightness 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.

69


TABLE VIII

CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF COLOR

Number of KNOWNS

Color White Metallic Not stated Orange Red Yellow Green Blue Other Total

281 298 189 117

Adjusted Number of KNQWNS (K)

101

64 39

32 29 158 1286

434

K 3.04 6.19 0.06 2. 56 0. 13 0.03 0.82

95

31 30 11 10 53

92 90

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

â&#x20AC;¢II

0.57 434

13.40

D e g r e e s of f r e e d o m 5% 1%

14. 1 18. 5

I "t. .4:-.

70


TABLE IX

CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

Number of Objects Per Sighting

Number of KNOWNS

1 2 3-10 11 or more Not stated

913 142 168 34 29

308 48 57 11 10

297

1286

434

434

Total

Number of [OWNS(n)

37 70 25 5

(K-n): K 0. 2. 2. 15. 2.

39 52 96 36 50

23. 73

D e g r e e s of f r e e d o m

9. 5 13.3

5% 1%

71

!

;

••


TABLE X

CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS O F SHAPE

Shape

Elliptical Rocket or aircraft Meteor or comet Flame T e a r d r o p , lenticular, or .conical Other Not stated Total

X2,

Number of KNOWNS

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

7jr_ n \2

632

213

195

72

24 3

33

1. 52 3.37

16

10.1.

1.

27

22

0.93

296

51 100

54 116

1.76 2. 56

1286

434

434

11. 46

9 47 79 151

4

V

K

I

i~> 5c

D e g r e e s of f r e e d o m 5% 1%

11.1 15. 1

72

f


TABLE XI

CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF DURATION OF OBSERVATION X2,

Duration of Observation

Number of KNOWNS

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

5 sec or less 6-10 sec 11.-30 sec 31-60 sec 61 sec-5 min 6 min-30 min Over 30 min Not stated

92 47 118 92 252 259 91 335

31 16 40 31 85 87 31 113

27 21 33 42 99 71 37 104

1286

434

434

Total

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

K 0. 1. 1. 3. 2. 2. 1. 0.

52

56 23 90 31 94 16 72

14. 34

Degrees of freedom 14. 1 18. 5

5% 1%

73

gfc :-â&#x20AC;¢


TABLE XII

CHI SQUARE TJ£ST OF REVISE D KNOWNS VERt5US UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF SPEED

Speed Stationary Less than 100 mph 100 to 400 mph Over 400 mph Meteor-like Not stated Total

X2 (K-n)2 K

Number of KNOWNS

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

196

66

53

128

26 58 145 1

24

43 53 98 8

491

166

136

5.42

1286

434

434

43.71

156 291

16}

2. 56 6.72 0.47 ~> Q C A

do. 54

Degrees of freedom 9.5 13.3

5% 1%

74

f


«*P*^^

TABLE XIII

CHI SQUARE TEST OF REVISED KNOWNS VERSUS UNKNOWNS ON THE BASIS OF LIGHT BRIGHTNESS

Light Brightness

i • ] ]

Sunlight on mirror Sunlight on aluminum Sunlight on plaster, stone, or soil Brighter than moon Like moon or duller than moon Not stated

*j

Total

Number of KNOWNS

Adjusted Number of KNOWNS (K)

Number of UNKNOWNS (n)

X , (K-n) K 2.67

21

14 28 16

143 42

48 15

61 22

3. 52 3. 27

878

296

293

0.03

1286

434

434

10. 68

8

24 136 63

46

1. 19

•i i

D e g r e e s of freedom 5% 1%

9.5 13.3

75


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 astronomical 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 astronomical 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.

The "Flying Saucer" 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, are-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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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


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 because 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.

#

"I

L

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 seto It cannot be said wrth any assurance what these radar sightings mean, but the most logical explanation is that they are ground targets r e 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


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 as,, 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 "flying saucer". 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.

-These are round cups which protrude

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

TV- , "


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 unaccountable feature of the objects was that each had a red glow surrounding it and was glowing itself, although it was a cloudless night.

Light glow

Case III (Serial 2013.00, 2014.00, and 2014.01)

'-*â&#x20AC;&#x17E;

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 Câ&#x20AC;&#x201D;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, somewhat larger than a B-29. No engine nacelles were observed on the wings.

79


m.'~

Case IV (Serial 4599.00) A part-time farmer and a hired hand were curing tobacco at midnight on July_19, 1952, when they looked up and saw two cigar-shaped objects. One hovered^while the other moved to the east and came back, at which time both ascended until out of sight. Duration of observation was 3 to 4 minutes. Both had an exhaust at one end, and neither had projections of any kind. It was stated that they appeared to be transparent and illuminated from the inside.

Exhaust

â&#x20AC;˘ .'Si

80


Case V (Serial 0565. 00 to 0565. 03) I 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 ste^p climb and was lost from sight in some clouds. Duration of the observation was about 10 seqonds. 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.

Cockpit windshield?.

Pilot Windows with white light

i

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.

No light

Deep red

82

f.•••-•/-


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.

&

Black lines evenly spaced

Proportion 7 to 1 (Dimensions are as shown in observer's original drawing)

83


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


C a s e IX ( S e r i a l 0066.00) A f a r m e r and his two s o n s , aged 8 and 10, w e r e at his fishing c a m p on August 13, 1947. At about 1300 h o u r s , he went to look for the boys, having sent t h e m to the r i v e r for s o m e tape f r o m his boat. He noticed an object s o m e 300 feet away, 75 feet above the ground. He saw it a g a i n s t the background of the canyon wall which was 400 feet high at this point. It was hedge hopping, following the contour of the ground, was sky blue, about 20 feet in d i a m e t e r and 10 feet thick, and had pods on the side from which f l a m e s w e r e shooting out. It m a d e a swishing sound. The o b s e r v e r s t a t e d that the t r e e s w e r e highly a g i t a t e d by the craft a s it p a s s e d o v e r . His two sons a l s o o b s e r v e d the object. No one saw the object for m o r e than a few s e c o n d s .

Side view

K

#;

End view

85

if


Case X (Serial 1119.00) An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab, were by a river, 2-1/2 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 increasing 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 - l / 2 to 3 minutes.

,Something equivalent to a patch

Smoother in front Direction of motion

Rough and wrinkled in rear

"Surface appeared dirty and spotty in color

86

I


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 l/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 a1 circle approximately 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. Considering 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


I

Flashing light

Portholes^

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 car, 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 in 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


20' to 25* height

Approximately 75' long

90


These 12 sightings can be classed into four categories on the basis of their shapes, as follows: M

(l) Propeller shape - Case I

m (2) Aircraft shape â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Cases II and III (3) 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 descrip-^ 1 tions were given in enough detail to permit diagrams of the objects to be 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 detailed is an important one, and was the easiest to determine in the re-evaluation program. However, a good model ought to satisfy the following conditions as well: (1) The general shape of the object and the maneuvers it performed should fit the reports of many of the UNKNOWNS and thus explain them. i

(2) The observer and the report should be reliable.

v

(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 good UNKNOWNS between which there is no essential conflict.

It can_bji_jLhciWji_ih^l-it-is not possible to deduce a model from the 12. cases that will satisfy all of these conditions. The following case-by-case 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. There are very few UNKNOWNS in the aircraft shape classification. In addition, the unusual characteristic of this sighting (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

^


(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 considered 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 conditions. (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 drawing, 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 VIII 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 i m 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 c a s e s . Having culled the c r e a m of the crop, it is still impossible to develop a picture of what a "flying saucer" i s . In addition to this study of the good UNKNOWNS, an attempt was made to find groups of UNKNOWNS for which the observed characteristics were 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 s a u c e r s " . It may be that some reports r e p r e s e n t observations of not one but several classes of objects that might have been "flying s a u c e r s " ; 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 b i z a r r e 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 i s , 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 factjthat upon reading a_JLejw rje_p_QrJLs_,_.:^ that "flying s a u c e r s " a r e r e a l and a r e some form of sinister contrivance. This reaction is independent of the training of the r e a d e r or of his attitude toward the problem prior to the initial contact. It is unfortunate that practically all of the a r t i c l e s , books, and news stories dealing with the phenomenon of the "flying saucer" were written by men who were in this category, that i s , men who had read only a few selected r e p o r t s . This is accentuated by the fact that, as a rule, only the more lu r id - s oundin g reports a r e 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 r e a d e r is convinced that "flying s a u c e r s " a r e r e a l and a r e some form of sinister contrivance, is very misleading. As more and m o r e of the r e p o r t s a r e read, the feeling that " s a u c e r s " a r e r-e-al 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 information at all and a r e 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 a r t to remain objective.

93


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 demonstrate 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^.nd arranged, the data as awhpje did not show any marked patterns or trends. The inaccuracies 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 relationships 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 characteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, principally 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 KNOJ^NS 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 technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

94


I

APPENDIX A

TABULATIONS OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS BY CHARACTERISTIGS

i

m

i

95 and 96


INDEX OF TABLES

m

Table A l .

Evaluation of All Sightings by Years

107

Table A2.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Years .

Table A3.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Years

108

Table A4.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year, All Years

109

Table A5.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year, 1947

110

Table A6.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year, 1948

Ill

Table A7.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year,

Table A8.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year, 1950

113

Table A9.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year, 1951

114

Table A10.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Month of Year, 1952

115

Table A l l .

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, AH Years

Table A12.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1947

117

Table A13.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1948

118

Table A14.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1949

119

Table A15.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1950

120

Table Al6.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1951

121

Table A17.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Month of Year, 1952

Table A18.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year, All Years

123

Table A19.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year,

1947

124

Table A20.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year,

1948

Table A21.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year,

1949

126

Table A22.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year,

1950

127

Table A23.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year, 1951

128

Table A24.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Month of Year,

129

Table A25.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, All Years

130

Table A26.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1947

130

Table A27.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1948

130

Table A28.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1949

130

Table A29.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1950

131

Table A30.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1951

Table A31.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1952

131

Table A32.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, All Years

132

Table A33.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1947 .â&#x20AC;¢

132

.

97

.

. s

107

1949

'.

.

.

.

.

112

116

.

'

125

1952

.

122

'.

131


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table A34.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1948

132

Table A35.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1949 .

132

Table A36.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1950

133

Table A37.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1951

Table A38.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1952

133

Table A39.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, All Years

134'

Table A40.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1947

134

Table A41.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1948

134

Table A42.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1949

134

Table A43.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1950

135

Table A44.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1951

135

Table A45.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, 1952

135

Table A46.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Sighting Reliability Groups, Military Observers

136

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Sighting Reliability Groups, Civilian Observers

136

Table A47.

Table A48.

Table A49.

Table A50.

Table A51.

Table A52.

Table A53.

Table A54.

Table A55.

Table A56.

Table A57.

Table A58.

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1947 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Military Observers

,

133

.

'

136

Evaluation of AH Sightings for 1947 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Civilian Observers

136

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1948 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Military Observers

137

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1948 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Civilian Observers

137

Evaluation of AU Sightings for 1949 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Military Observers

137

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1949 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Civilian Observers

137

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1950 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Military Observers

138

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1950 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Civilian Observers

138

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1951 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Military Observers

138

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1951 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Civilian Observers .

138

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1952 by Sighting Reliability Groups, Military Observers

139

I 98


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) ' Table A59.

Page

Evaluation of All Sightings for 1952 by Sighting Reliability Groups, '5<?

Civilian Observers Table A60.

Reported Colors of Objects Sighted by Years, All Sightings

.,

140

Table A61. Reported Colors of Objects Sighted by Years, Unit Sightings

140

Table A62.

Reported Colors of Objects Sighted by Years, Object Sightings

140

Table A63.

Evaluation of All Sightings for AH Years by Colors Reported

141

Table A64.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported

142

Table A65.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported

143

Table A66.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, One Object

144

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Two Objects ; . .

144

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Three to Ten Objects

145

Table A67.

Table A68.

Table A69.

Table A70. . ... •

i

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

146

,

Table A71. Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, One Object Table A72.

Table A73.

Table A74.

Table A75.

Table A76.

Table A77.

ft

145

Table A78.

v

Table A79.

Table A80.

147

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Two Objects

147

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Three to Ten Objects

148

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Eleven or More Objects

.

148

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Number of Objects Not Sta'ted

149

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, One Object

150

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Two Objects .

150

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Three to Ten Objects

151

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Eleven or More Objects

.

.

.

151

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting, Number of Objects Not Stated

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

152

Table A 81.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, All Years

153

Table A82.

Evaluation of All Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1947

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

Table A94.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1952

160

Table A95.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, All Years

161

Table A96.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1947

161

Table A97.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1948

Table A98.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1949

Table A99.

Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1950

.

159

.

162 .

162 163

Table A100. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sightings, 1 9 5 1 . Table A101. Evaluation of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting, 1952 Table A102.

Table A103.

Table A104.

Table A105.

Table A106.

Table A107.

Table A108.

Table A109.

:

163 .

.

.

.

.

164

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Five Seconds or Less

165

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years/by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Six to Ten Seconds

166

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Eleven to Thirty Seconds

167

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Thirty One to Sixty Seconds

168

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Sixty One Seconds to Five Minutes

169

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Six to Thirty Minutes

170

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Over Thirty Minutes Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Duration Not Stated .

100

'

'

â&#x20AC;¢ 171

172


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table A110. Table A l l l . Table A112. Table A 1 1 3 . Table A114. Table A115. Table A116. Table A117. Table A118. Table A119. Table A120. Table A 1 2 1 . Table A 1 2 2 .

, 173

Evaluation of Unit Sightings 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

176

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months ; of Year, Sixty'One Seconds to F i v e Minutes ;'

177

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Six to Thirty Minutes

178

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for 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 A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Five Seconds or L e s s

181

Evaluation, of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Six to Ten Seconds

182

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Eleven to Thirty Seconds . . . . . . .

. 183

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Thirty One to Sixty Seconds

.

184

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Sixty One Seconds to F i v e Minutes

185

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Six to Thirty Minutes

186

Table A 124. Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Over Thirty Minutes

187

Table A 1 2 3 .

#

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Five Seconds or L e s s

Table. A125.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Duration of Sighting for Months of Year, Duration Not Stated

188

Table A126.

Evaluation of A l l Sightings for A l l Y e a r s by Shape of Object, Elliptical

Table A127. Table A128.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Rocket and Aircraft Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Meteor or Comet .

Table A129.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Lenticular, Conical,

189

.

.

.

.

.

189 190

.

or Teardrop

190

Table A130.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Flame

191

Table A 1 3 1 .

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Other Shapes

191

Table A 1 3 2 .

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Shape Not Stated

101

.

.

192


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table A l 3 3 .

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Shape of Object, Elliptical

193

Table A134.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Shape of Object, Rocket and Aircraft

193

Table A135.

Evalua^on of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Shape of Object, Meteor or Comet

194

Table A136.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Lenticular, Conical, or Teardrop

194

Table A137.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Shape of Object, Flame

195

Table A138.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Shape of Object, Other Shapes

195

Table Al/39. ' Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Shape of Object, Shape Not Stated

196

Table A140.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape.of Object, Elliptical

197

Table A 1 4 1 .

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Rocket and Aircraft

197

Table A 1 4 2 .

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Meteor or Comet

198

Table A 1 4 3 .

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Lenticular, Conical, or Teardrop

'

198

Table A144.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Flame

199

Table A145.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Other Shapes .

199

Table A146.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Shape of Object, Shape Not Stated .

Table A147.

Evaluation of A l l Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Stationary

Table A.148. Evaluation of A l l Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, L e s s Than One Hundred Miles per Hour . . Table A149. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, One Hundred to Four Hundred Miles per Hour Table A150. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Over Four Hundred Miles per Hour Table A 1 5 1 . Table A 1 5 2 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

200 201

.

:

.

.

.

.

201 202 202

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

Table A153.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Stationary.

Table A154.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, L e s s Than One Hundred Miles per Hour Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, One Hundred to Four Hundred Miles per Hour

20 5

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Over Four Hundred Miles per Hour

205

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, M e t e o r - L i k e Speeds .

206

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Speed Not Stated .

206

Table A155. Table A156. Table A157. Table A 1 5 8 .

102

.

.

.

.

.

204

204


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued)

, Page

Table A159.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Stationary

Table A160.

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

Table A161.

Table A162.

Table A163.

Table A164.

207

207 208

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Over Four Hundred Miles per Hour

208

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Meteor-Like Speeds

209

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Reported Speeds of Objects, Speed Not Stated

t

209

Table A165.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Light Brightness

210

Table A166.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Light Brightness

211

Table A167.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Light Brightness

â&#x20AC;¢ .

2 12

Table A168.

Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, All Years

.

213

Table A169.

Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1947

214

Table A17D.

Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1948

215

Table A171.

Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1949

Table A172.

Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1950

217

Table A173.

Location of Observer During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1951

218

Table A174.

Location of Observers During Sighting by Months for All Sightings, 1952

Table A175.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration oif Sighting, White or Glowing White Objects .

220

Table A176.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Metallic Objects

220

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported" for Duration of Sighting, Object Color Not Stated

221

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Orange or Glowing Orange Objects

221

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Red or Glowing Red Objects

222

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Green or Glowing Green Objects

222

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Yellow or Glowing Yellow Objects

223

Evaluation of All Sightings for AH Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting,-Objects of Other Colors .

223

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, White or Glowing White Objects

224

Table A177.

Table A178.

Table A179.

Table A180.

Table A181.

Table A182.

Table A183.

103

.

.

.

216

.

219


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) Pace Table A184.

Table A 185.

Table A186.

Table A187.

Table A188.

Table A189.

Table A190.

Table A191.

Table A192.

Table.A193.

Table A194.

Table A195.

Table A196.

Table A197.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Metallic Objects

224

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Object Color Not Stated

225

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Orange or Glowing Orange Objects ;

225

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Red or Glowing Red Objects

226

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Green or Glowing Green Objects

226

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Yellow or Glowing Yellow Objects

227

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Objects of Other Colors

227

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, White or Glowing White Objects

228

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Metallic Objects

228

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Object Color Not Stated . . .

229

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Orange or Glowing Orange Objects

229

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Red or Glowing Red-Objects . . . . . . . . . . . ^

230

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Green or Glowing Green Objects

i

. . . . . . .

230

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Yellow or Glowing Yellow Objects

231

Evaluation of Object Sightings for AH Years by Colors Reported for Duration of Sighting, Objects of Other Colors

231

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, One Object

232

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Two Objects

232

Table A201. Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Three to Ten Objects

233

Table A198.

Table A199.

Table A200.

Table A202.

Table A203.

Table A204.

Table A205.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Eleven or More Objects

233

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Number of Objects Not Stated .

234

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, One Object

235

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Two Objects

235

104

t


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table A206. Table A207.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Three to Ten Objects

Table A209. Table A210. Table A211. Table A212. Table A213.

236

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting" for Duration of Sighting, Eleven or More Objects 1

Table A208.

'

236

i

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Number of Objects Not Stated

."

237

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, One Object

238

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Two Objects

238

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Three to Ten Objects

239

Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Eleven or More Objects

239

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Number of Objects per Sighting for Duration of Sighting, Number o£ Objects Not Stated

m

240

Table A214.

Evaluation of All Sightings for A l l Y e a r s by Geographic Location

241

Table A215.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by Geographic Location

241

Table A216.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by Geographic Location

Table A217.

Evaluation of All Sightings for A l l Years by North American Location .

243

Table A218.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by North A m e r i c a n Location

243

Table A219.

Evaluation of Object Sightings for A l l Years by North A m e r i c a n Location

Table A220.

Evaluation of All Sightings for All Years by United States Regional Location

245

Table A221.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings for A l l Years by United States Regional Location

246

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

242

244

Table A222.- Evaluation of Object Sightings for All Years by United States Regional Location

247

Table A223.

Evaluation of All Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the Central East Region

248

Table A224.

Evaluation of A l l Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the Central Midwest Region

Table A225.

Evaluation of All Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the Central Farwest Region

248

Table A226.

Evaluation of All Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the South Midwest Region

249

Table A227.

Evaluation of All Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the Sou^IT^West Region

249

Table A228.

Evaluation of All Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the South Farwest Region

249

Table A229.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the Central East Region

250

Table A230.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the Central Midwest Region

250

Table A231.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the Central F a r w e s t Region .

Table A232.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic A r e a s of the South Midwest Region

105

.

248

i

.

.

.

.

.

250 251


INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table A233.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South West Region

251

Table A234.

Evaluation of Unit Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Farwest Region

Table A235.

Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central East Region

252

Table A236.

Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Midwest Region

252

Table A237.

Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Farwest Region

252

Table A238.

Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Midwest Region

253

.

2

^1

Table A239. Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South West Region

253

Table A240.

253

Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Farwest Region

I

106


All

/94 "r

_g\#/f<i 'erCem

Number Evaluation 0- Balloon 1-Astronomical 2-Aircraft 3-Light Phenom.

Ctrtain Doubtful

110 47i264 3Z

4-Birds 5-Clouds, Dust, etc.

/? /t

8-Unknown 9-Ottier

Total

Certain

Doubtful

., . I/O 3*'/ d'7 (49 ^ ,'/• 4

Total

m

*.<•:

(,"?•

24

7,1

C/i

16

O-4'

£ *'

0

2lfl>

9?

i'J

(0

/ f

3ft I,f9

(0

l/l

36

(•S

2

of

0

/. /

35

2100 9o/ ?10>

4/ 9

/

«

<

/

f

2i / 'c-U

O-Balloon

Ctrtain

ToUl t_ 7/

f.Z f

/<5"

/'

3-Light Phenom. ' 4-Birds

0

5-Clouds, Oust, etc

&

7-Psychological 8-Unknom

7/

Klttier

,2.

6/

I"

/CS

OO

e

-9 .'

<>

f

£'3

2V°

(4$

o

'

(7

O.(J (*•'£

/? / '•//

(00.

V

Total

/4

8

Doubtful

o

0

ff

z

23.2 SZ </{, 2

32.

Total

Certain

OO

s*

/

/ r

(•>,"

«".

"

i'.

oo //

6

?

(? I-i

/-.

U-

•f"

r

0

?(-

a a

3

0

•</.<.

C2 0O

* /

a '

CO ,1 '.'

/£J__ . 5

(/

'£Cr ?fr

131

Total

Doubtful

. ; • /

a ' '0 £' 0

-&•"V

(. O

M

Doubtfu

(44 (10

OO

0 7 (?o

0-7 0.0

,j

{•

"

Ot

r i

0 <•'

,V0.

<•'/•$•

K.7

0O

17

07

0-7

/f

2L

£0

LS~

Per Cent

23(

w

7t-0

jj_

u

0 4$<i

ZOO 2a0 (00. MO

/{9

?1? '2 /

O.£\

02 0/,

(.?

0?

b2 (b

22.i.

OO

Z2-1-

(0

r2-

oo

IS 2O/Z

&8

PerCent

J&£' /2.9

4tl (2.4* (76

7

Number

Tom Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

it /Z

a.o

/to

Certain

'?2, ?/

2. *• 4.'

s

/7

6~.O

/l€

Total

2 '

?(,<-•

io :

/

po

£• 0

1 ?•(

(a:

(A

Doubtful

0

/"

o

S.p (£.0 2£0 2.0 1l> 07

Si

0

0

Certain

-Ml

Number

1,2 2.$ /fi.i. /O.L (3

7

30J, U-3 //./

Certain

J

(V

Total

/95 C-

74

O

/

i'f

Percent

'7

0

0O

O-0 2.3

Doubtful

r}

O(' OP /7 O

C (•

9S

-in

Pet Cent

Number

Doubtful

~7 2-'

/"

zts (02

/ ( "

cr

Certain

jj

(>

Number

((r-0

(3 77 1SZ

Total

i rf

7,0

Certain Doubtful1 Total

7

?*?

2$

Total

PerCenl

a0 Oo

K

<?•<?

•?

0 ('

/" <>

Total Certain Z. -3 70.1 13J- 70 frO $2. 24.2. ?$ 72-7 'M /£> 2. 00 0-0

(to

4

77

Number

/?* /

OO

6-lnsuffic. Info.

00

4

&

Certain Ooubtfu

, •

If 0~

(.7

Per Cent

S3

1-Astronomical 2-Aircraft

Doubtfu

Doubllul

C74

&

Certain

•'

/?£•£> Number Evaluation

Total

91 • • ' , \

/«•>

i

<•

:w /

0.?

(41

7

."•To

(0

(3

Doubtful

CerLain

^' .

(

&-tnsuffic .Info. 7-Psycho logical

Total

/"-,

' . *

>er Cent

Number

/.'•S

/C

-

276> /GO

J

/? £ AIL

</&*/?$

Number Evaluation O-Balloon 1-Astronomical 2-Aircraft 3-Ligfit Pftenom. 4-Birds 5-Clouds, Dust, etc. S-lnsuffic. Info.

Certain

Doubtfu

Wither

Total

Certain Doubtfu

Number Total

Certain

Doubtful

izf /«"/ 379 JLL S-9 _JZ_ /SO (0.0 2S.0 JJ3x3 ? ? n £ S.< H4 9 2 70l> 2. 31 £? 13 P-9 2.1 _z IS . ;o 23 0.5 0.4 0.9 0 7

3

it,/

0

a/

10 2k/

lOZ

? _££

7-Psychological 8-Unknowi

Total

o

42L 91 /$?1

V97 /2o

0-3 0.0 /o^

/•4

j££i AA

7/7 tSS4 JLL

/

OO

/2s

$

tt-S

/ / ill

0

(£>

100.

dt£.

O

Evaluation

1-Astronomial 2-Aircratt 3-LigM Phenom. 4-Birds 5-Clouds. Dust, etc. 6-lnsuffic Info. 7-Psychological 8-Unknomi 9-OthEr

Total

Total

22, 42. 30 o _J0_

27 to 20-( 4/

0

0

0

0 0 24, 4.

0

0

2-i 2, 42

0 0

6

£

770

0

,/

39 209

Total

Certain

/7

Doubtful

0.0

Number

7-2

4 2.1 ?•/ U 2 J.l Zl O 0.0 0-P 00 <? 0 0.0 00 0-0 00 (I 2. £.2 3.1 24 24.7 0.0 0 /6S 0 0 li-,f 2. 0 0

/i.

91ML

/ /

z?

7fL

i24

/O 24 77 SS

If

z 2

0 '7

3 3 0

0

Certain

Doubtful

£./

Number Total

Certain

t(

(43 5 3 ff.i00 PO _2_ 0 0-0 00 fi.(7 00 p.0 _£_ 0.0 Z2..4 /4 / (0 •0-0 (0 O0

U>.(

i-f

2,4

£~.3

(ft

((%>•

Total

Certain

4

Ion f.t

11 7,0 JJL 00

// /

OO

07

00

1-3 Si 0.0 III (6*

f/ (

'

1,4.1

11-

ier

></

to

(g

/z

0

0

z 3? 3 33 &>

(14 10

/

3

0

0

o o o o

740 ft

7

Certain^ Doubtful , Total

47 76

Doubtful

Total

00

ff.i 2l)4

107

777

:ertain

Doubtful

OO JJlJL t-o /4O / 3 ,2

f?

fi.O

Doubtful

Total

oV

7 /O 0 (f9 o

7214 4ft

n.

a tin

/•+$

2-=' /?-0 HI,

/oo

6/-i\

Number

/££ 7?O Zff 111 iJ Zot 21f /of JlL qo<i JU_ II5 ni ZUL 1.0 // 2L 9 5 /I 0.4 0-3 01 3 /£f 2b 344 S2

,2

• Per Cent

Total Certain

£ 0 73. t 61 (7.7

£J 0.% -2^.

/?$£

f I3f

36?

06

/S3

Per Cent Total

(4 ,11,

Number

&,•<>

277

0 17

72

0

100

2.2 (I /Y 3S (9.3 /O.2 26.6 24 /(• 7 e-n 77•> 3 • / • f O7 1.2 / 0.0 0 7 07 / 0 0 00 0.0 OO 0 /4 70.2- 00 /0 2 / Z 07 01 /•¥ 0 0

6

0

'er Cent

3

d.f U7

Doubtful

s

7

Number

Per Cent

Total Certain Doubtful T^otal Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtfu

//s-y FerCent

Certain Doubtful

•/8

Percent

Z

/PS-0 Number

0- Balloon

/?-

/9<f7

Per Cent

00

0-3

n

to.o

0.0

2.0

0.1 If

1L7. t i t

2o,<?

/oo

Certain

Doubtful

Pet C » t Total

CoUin

Doubtlul

Total


rtf-r

Z 7 // '</£/>*£ Evilalioa 0< Ballon 1-tetmmical Mircrart R # t Plwnon.

Percent Number Pei Cent Nunber Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful TotaT Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

to? /It' ?1f 17* 20*

?#? n^ SO

4-Birds

6-lnaflic Mo.

&£. fs

Mllur

to ££- 0*

zv

?a

_J_

/o

&L- 0.3 l&l 00 /i? 9 i t Mu 0.4 to

dJL S?

U

Number Percent Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtfu

0-Balloon

2-Aitcnft 3-litftPtwnon. «-BiRb

0

5-Clouds, Dust, etc S-lnsilfic Into.

J4~

7-Psydntofical

_£_ -#-

IMMmow '

H9

HZ

25 * / ?9 dL ^ f £T.3 f ,1/ (? 0 />.O aO a_ 0 O.o 00 <? 0 00 01? /

l-Astnranical

tti f-fl //

7

/i

*-f

10 1 I.S

fi.O (ft / / Wl ?.0Z 2s f< to

? Y <p z ?.£ no f-s 2 0 fl.O 00 00 0t> 0 /7 <? /Zao J2. / 1SL 7$ i$ & tf.1 00 ttt _^£ <? ft ttf 0.O / / ? _4_ /

tit

_x /^ 11$ If

f / /

//

LL

z

a.i

f

0.O

ao 0.S 0!

JU

't

/06

2t

s JJL i t

0

£&_ 00

s~ p

ss ? / *$

t .JL

/}

0 t 0 0 0 0

3s.o wo. ILL

70

//?

&0

?9

f/ ZM //</ '// 0

7

/i 25 27.$ 0.0 27.3 ?/ <r.t 0.O

6 o

r*

ttf

/7-r /i.9 //•7 M6 .7? / 7 »f / / 0.S %3 0K 0-1 /0 0.2 0f / / / ft 0-0 ft J/ 17 0{ 2.1 ?0S 20. t 0.0 7/>.Z is 0? S3

/&' 71- <r2f{

/to

/

/

it*

Hi /Si. 2JL£.Wf-'

&

0

//•£

108

/3

Jl_

'7 JLJL 0.0 I/I / 07 0.0 0-7 s 0 /<r 0 00 10 ? 2Z 7 // |X£ •f.9 77 _JL

S

1

/ft

JJ.i -&/?1

a

at

70

3 S

//.? 2S

0* 0f 0-0

*•¥

f / i7$ 4'

PeiCent Ntnber Nwaber ;ertain Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Total Certain Daubtfu

f-l

?•$

/0 i f

?e i3.1 //. b 2<f-t i/ £0 / / /

I?

0 /

$

m- 13

7? Mi

tz

• Number Percent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

0,0 / 0.0 0 0,0 .&0fi /</,!> i¥ / g_ 00 /•2> no ?9 ile. 0<? JL ? f .16 /K £$ S-

30

a

V£- K

Mf n.i 27-9 «0- I t

Evaluation

Total

r<

/0

Total

Wider

ite

</f

f

7-Plyd»k)|iol UMooaii

M

93 2I.S

/f

r

S-CloudJ, Dust, etc

to

Itaoer Nuaber Percent Percent ;ertan Ooubtful ToUl Certain Doubthl Total Certain OouMful Total Certain DMbtful | Total

70 97 /10 0 00 0!> / // 0

0.0

SJJL S /C zz / / / X2.

/u

00

00 00 4.0 / / / /i 00 6 0 pf 0.0 JZ /00.

Percent Total Certain Doubtful Tol.l


A'fi

F rgfrVA/rr Era-mboo

'erCont Nucaber Certan Doubtful Total Certan Doubtful Total

3 6

0-Balloon l-Zutmrnieal Mirenfl

2? 6

3

9 v.y 22 i c

0

0 0

S-Clouds, Dust, etc

o

0

6-lnMflic toh.

0 0

e 7C

ej

0 1

83

S3

4-Birds

0

7-PjydBkiFcal t-IMomar

2

?<•

MKwr

Total

2-1 72 4 'l 1

-15 2 / 3 23 S SSI

0

3-UeMPtnnon.

Nuaber Percent :ertain DouHful Total Certan Doubtful Total

00 0-0

o.o SI

10

C4 CI.C

0.0 0.0 0 0 O.o QA 0 0

0

n

IC

<f

5 0

J 7.7 33 Ig.y

'9

0 0

0

0 0 0

o.o 5-7

0

13

0

O-t IS QQ "•1 0 7 7 3

U

0

8

0

3f.Q

w.-

0

Q

0

12

2/

n

0.Q o.O

1 i /if I

a i&

2 93

O.O 9-1 /(•> 9 20 f.C n-1 21 2 0 11 17.7 SH- 'Si 7b 7 3 6 i3.f o.O 0 0 oo 0

0.0 0.0

0.0 '7-2

QO 0 0 00 O.o 11.0

o.o

m

•S

0

S

0 72

I

j

o

0 0

O-O 172 B.C 09 $6

221 Hi.

f erCent ToUl CsUin Doubtful Total

PerCent Number Nvinber :ertan Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful ToUl Certain Ooubttul

01 1

m

12.1 7 11.1 S2 73 1.2 it.)

3 9

Q.O 0.0

i

0 1

0

0

0 0

3.0

O.C 6.C •22 00 /I.i 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 if n.5 0.0 '7-5 iB O.C JO.7 JD.&

0 0 0

'7 V

3. 0 0.0

7J

'2.0,

9 Hi,

10.5

?? S 100-

8

2 2

i

o

Enluatkxi O-Bailooa

QH

3-Li|ht Pbenoa

S-lnsuffic kilo.

0 36

9 US

3?

Certain Doublfti

6

19

3i i<J

II

3-Light Phenol

i

«-Birth

i

7-Psydnlojial

Q 20 3

t-Untnoai

Si

6-Msuffic. tab.

?

Mttw ToW

1

3

0 0

0

0

y • 0 Q

?< C V7

0

is

8 72

1-Astnmiical

5-Cloods, Dust etc

Si

0 8 JLL\ 0.0 H-f 0 Ql it.3 0.1 //.3 0 o.o 0.* Q.0 0 0 36 ig.C QO 184 f- 13 t.L 3.-I -hi

0-Mloon

2-Airoafl

i 73 13

2

Nugte Evaluation

liC

2f 3o

0

Mthcr

Total

/r.o

116 7 7 10-( 3.4

2-t S-2

IS 3

7-Psyd»l0|ical S-lMnom

¥0 '2.9 C J.5 Z o.t

Number Percent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certan Doubtful Total

05 3

4-Birds Klouds, Oust, etc

5 2? J2'f 38 IM

JO

tAstnnical 2-Aircnft

Percent Total Certain Doubtfu

It!

37

a. / 9

nv 7t.f

1. 0

1.0

Q 0 f

2D.I 100. i82

IS. $ '7.7 137

Of

/•?

0.0

0.0

If H

0.0

o-o

11.9 c 2.(, 17 7tb 9 j.r

0.0 t.o

110

6-0

7O.(, J?S

of

3-7 yo

m in

20.7

0.0

f

iSS 10.8

S5

Sf IS 7

S $ 17/ I2.S Sf 9 8 23) 1*3 It. 5 18 IS of 7 0t 0- 3 3 / S 0 tf ri / (? 1S. 0. 0

Iff-* 51 719

SI

VH

8i '23 '07

ss

3 OS / Q.O 70 3

n.o, 7V-Z 10 IS 1.0

IC

7 Q.O HO

IS

II I

70 I/a Ul

0.5 OS 0 0.0 1* •n

*

33.3 /CO.

17 H

sr

0 i 9.9 '¥ 0 sc 7(1 Q.Q a 3 II JL£. I-H S.3 3 <

21 37 81 7/

1

1

0 0

as

/ 0

JQ.j lf-2 /Of 31.7

5.7

f.f

0

mi

Ii •3

1 OS

1-0

O.S O-S Q.O 0-2 0.0

0 It 1*7 Q.O 9- / C o-s / (>7

5

s OS ? 1 It. I AJ. 12 (-1

m

0 0

-23 30

If 2f /(, 1

57 27

II.0 '1.0 17.1 17-7 He

17

if

a.(

00

o.t 0.0 H-1 9.1 0 QO Hf Q.Q o.t. 0.0 lf.< HO f OP

0

P

8 o.o

0-5 JQ-7

3?

?./

H

0 0

91

72

9 /

0

0

12 /7S

y J± '

"

/

37 12 I

IS

0

8 /

C-S.l .3<t.f 100.

109

"t r

i i

v/

i 11 /- ? 0 "9 718 21 7 '8

'Ct- 103 216 91? IS- 7 2*3 I/-A 13C its S2I ct.%

21.9

7 2b

OH 23 6

JJLA. \2M.

o.o

Ii

SCI

Hlf

Ji.S

jn.

lit,

J0S.

/O-D

0

20 2.9 f2 'i-8 SI Cl 3 OA

iff-5

7-i JL±

0

Nunber Nuatef PefCent PerCent Nuabef Total Certain Doubtful Total Certan Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certan Doubtful

\~T.o

11-2

7

0

0.0

PerCent ToUl Certan Onibttul Total

70

P a Cent Total Certain DrabHu

S<2

Iff

7

rs

1.0

O.Q 2g.S

0 p < 0 HS 1 1-0 1.0 2.0 10 0 J15 71.0 0 0 2J.0 H f II 1 • Hi V-3 01 H.f

If of

0.0

r~

Nw*er PerCent Nuiber :ertain Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Total Certan Doulitru

7-1 18.1100 HI J2.8 !'£• S.7 Jf.f '33

0.0

2 00

A' v Nttabet Certan Doubtfu

0.0

Q.Q /3.0

1 0

S7 7

ii

nf

*.O o.O o.S O.S 7.$

0i

2

0

s-o

'•y

H.S 3QJ

S l 9 0 0 1 7i 130

0 0

7( £•)

10 J 5CJ •2C9 3C it I

/• 3

nr*

0 0 (I-D 0 2 o ? 0.0 8 i 0 7 2./ 0. 0 2:.t I- 3 3 f 3A.

S /00-

Percent Total Certan DaiHIul Total

H-2 'SS 7.1 8 3 IS.?

7

Ji

*H

3/

Cl

'ft

0 0

76 / 0

U

9.1

o.c

0.1

0.0

0.0

0

0

0.0

0.0

SLO

0 Q

7

S.9 S-f

0.0 ry Q.Q 2.H 0.0 US 00

>t

0 0

90

2U

?

S-9

sz

Ji&

cio


Nunbff Certain Doubtfu

Evaluation

Nunter

PerCent Total

Certain Doublfu

Tobl

Certain

Doubtful

Number

P a Cat Total

Certain DoublU

Total

Certain Doubtful

Percent Total

Certain Jtouttful

PeiCml

Nuabrr Total

Certain

Total

Doubtful

Certain

DtaiMlul

Total

O-Balloon

-

1-Astronomcal

J

2-Aircraft

7

tj^>

/

A A* V y

y

•-Birth 5-Clowis, Dust, etc 6-lnsuffic kilo.

\

,

3-Lisht Pherm.

y

y

,

\

7-PsYcholopal

V

V

8-UnkMM Miner

Total

A usurr

J~L>J.f Number Evaluation

Certain

Numbn

PerCent

Doubtful Total

Certain

Doubtful Total

Certain

0-Balloon

/

1-Astnmnical

0

2-Aircnft

o

3-Light Phenom. «-Binh

Doubtful

Total

0 1 Q

*7 a? 77 / 7T 7-1 fit JS:o 0 p.e> at> &,e 0 to 6-e o p.o 0,1 Q.a 3 oti 71A 1 7.7 4P 7,7 U 4t 7.7 0.0 r.? I

0

.JL

0

1

0 0

6-lnsuffic kito. 7-Psycholo|ical

s

\ )

O

S-Unknoon ;

1

Mthet

U

Total

0 1

Certain Doubtful Total

/

/?

5-Clowts, Dust, etc.

Nuc*M

Percent

/,? 12.3

:ertain

Doubtful

6

D I

//r

",£

7- 0.0

5 0

1 o o f o IZ

7.7 /0O, JtL

Evaluation

Certain

0

4-Binb

Mthet

Total

Doubtfu

Total

Certain

0

0

M i g h t Phenoa.

8-Unknom

Certain

/

2-AircraH

7-Psycholocieal

Total

o

(00,0

Certain

Doubtful

Certan

0,0 /(?if

t>

?.(,

0

i

Owtitfu

0 1 a Q 0 0 0

0,0 /,f 0 P (> 0.0 ao 0 ao 0$ (?.O 0 O 0 r /«.S p Mr .2. 0.0 7,t 0 a 0 0 13- XI f 7 0,0 D 16 29.1 9-0 7-11 0 1 e. i*

0

7

PerCnt

NrabH Total

9.1

S!T 87,3 H,1 160,

/oo.

12.

Doubtful

Nurtet

P a cent

Nunber

0 1 ( 3 0

1-Astfononical

6-lnsuffic Info.

PaCeat

0 0.0 (?,0 6.0 0 t fC7 OO (a? /4> 0 0 0-0 of P 0 0 M> (?,6 at? 0 0 P.fi M 0,0 0 0 0 0.6 ?,<? ^,0 0 0 0 1 (LI 0.0 Ik7 0 1 if-7 (6,7 / 10 SB.O ftp fpp 2. o 0 0./) no 0,0 O

0 / o 0

0-Balloon

5-Clouds, Dust, etc

Doubtfu

Total

IT

/

Total

Certain

Doubtful

Tola!

D.Q JLJ> 7 17.5 (,,?

P

0,0

0.0 t>,e t.P ru2JL p.o <P (J.O o,o 00 (?

0 0.0 7 I2S fl 1° 7 '13.1 P 0.0

w

fie fi.o I?S (?.Q 0-f (1,6 Aff

0,0

00 /OP.

/6

A/orsr/'irjr/?'

SE-p7-jrMg£r/<> Nmber

PerCent

Total

0 7 (f • o 0 (? f? o 0 o p p 0 / 0 0 ? /? 0 <?

if

Certain DoubtU Total

S.O

0.0

Certain Doubtful

o

Pei Cent Total

0

/6.f /ar 0.0 0,p 0.0

o 0 0

0 1 7 0 P (7 1 p 0 0 0 (? 0 a (? 0 <? 0 p

'0.f

z.

/

73.7 /flf 0-1 0.0 ao 0,0 Po 0» 00 0.0 0.6 0.6 0,0 p.o S3 -&L ,f"?

110

1

0 1 0

o 0

3

Certain

Doubtful

Per C a t

Numbet Total

0.0 P.0 p.o 33.3 T?J tfifi O,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 313 0J> 0,0 o.e 00 04 0.0 0.0 0-0 0,0 0.0 00 o.o fl.Q 0.0 0.0 6.0 0,0 0,0 106.

Certain

o <r 0 0

0 0

Ooubtfu

0 0 p o

0

o o 0 6

0

0

J-

O

0

o

Total

Certain

Doubtful

Tom

A0 0fi op WJ> 0.0 mo 0 6.0 0.0 t,o o 0.0 0O Ob 0 0.0 0-0 60 o at IP-O 0.6 0 0-0 00 0 o.t Q6 0 o.o ao 0 0.0 ao

P

r

s

/OOJ


i

>J r'/r/tEvaluation

Number Percent Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

((•Balloon 1-AstnniMical 2-Airaaft 3-Litht Phenon. 4-Binb S-Clouds, Dust, etc

0

0

O

/0 0

?

y? 0

_J_ 0 0 \ 0 0

SfltJnr

0

Total

2. 0 0

0 /

4-

0-B>IIOM

1-Astmrmical 2-Aircraft 1-Lijht Phenoo. 4-Birts 5-Clouds, Dust etc. 6-lrauffic Info. 7-Psycholojical B-UnknoM 9-otfier

Total

o.o &£. *O P.O 0.0

( '(•

Number Certain Doubtfu

ir.o

00

c 0

0

Ao

0

0

O,0

0

a

to

o

0

0

0

p 0 0

2-

?

O

P-0 0,0 0.0 6*

zfio 100.

0

0,0

0,6

7,1

9.1 /T.2

r./

3

r

0.6

fi.P 1/

2-7.3 1 0 J

9.0

9,1

CO

1,1 0.0

0 1

0-0

O.t 7-7* *.s o.o

9,1

0.0

Q

6-P

*O

0

6

££. 0 o

0.0 0,0 r>.o

t.0 0.0

Ao

p.o /0O.O

X 0

o.o

If

Evaluation 0-Balloon

0

1-Astronomical

0 [_

3

P

J

0

0

0

2-Aircraft 3-LijM Pherm.

•-Bir* 5-Clouds, Dust, etc. 6-lnsiffic kib. 7-Psycholojical

0

0

_J2-

0 0

0 6

I

0 0

jf.P S.Q

0 6

J1&-

0-0

0 0 0

0 0

O.P

f. 0

6.0

0.0 #0

O.D

o,o /lo.

0 0 0

/

0,0 37S

S7.S

1 z

CO /lS

12.3

Q

6,0

0

0 0 1

0

0

0

Miner

0

1

1

0." \2£X 0.0

0 /

/A/ O.o

-r

O.O

_^2

3

0,0 —0-\ ff.p _ £ _ 0 0,0 O.P 1 to ?*-*• 0,0

0.0

o,o

0.0 s&.o -JL. OJ f O,Q 0.0

0

0

3

3

_e_

0

o

0.O S-0.0 $6.0 O.D 0.0 0-0

Q 0

0

0.O

O

0 gi

0

0.0 0.0

0,0 0.6

0-6

o

O.o

ao

0-0

ao

0,6

0 0

3

0

A

J

__£ /

2SA __L_ f 0,0

(6

0,0 00

0.0

0.0

6,0

0.0 o.o OS 0.V

0

ns

o

6,0 A0 /2.S

/

f

&O

1 0 0

O.D 00

0

00

0

M3.

2 0 1 0 0 0

IL 0 13

6~o.o 100.

6" //•3 7

a± 2,6

/ 0 0 0 // /

00 (1.9 0.(1

9ST.0 /oo.

0

f

/(.7

1

30.0 ¥1-7 /o.o 13.3

r i 0

i

6 (I

0 0

0 D

0 J 0 0

0

/

JL1 y 3

0 1

1

3,3

7

33

0 (? • 3.3

0

(?

ao

0.0

D

0-0 •zao

0

f> 2.0.O 0 Q.0

0 1

O.O

0-0

Q

0

0

7-

(.7

00

0

0

0

o.o

0P

fy 00

0 0

/,?

30

0.0

?, ? -Jt0 O1 >,0

on

(?

0 p o

5^.7 Jt-3.3 loo

in

S

lit

6

/ xo

fl.p

o.o0.0

0.P /£.7 AS

All M, 7 o.O o.o /oo.

—'-\

OO

0 ?,l 0,0 _JL 1 CP

0,0 0,0 O.D 25,2

p.

Per Cent Certain Doubtful Total

O.O Ifi. 2

/$.2 Oj

p

££. JLO 0.0

0.6 00

/ q> 0

0

o o

0

P

t-0

P 0 0

6JL D_J 7.1

O.O

0,0 JJL.

0,0 \

-J—

m.

n.

7

(/

Total

O.o O'O J O.D 0 0.0 60

0 60

60

0

/ $ •

/

0

7.1

6.0

0.0

3.6

0.0

0

o.o

CO 0.0

G

0.0

o.o

0

71

IJ.I 3.( ao to

ro fi.C

t.D to. 7 0.0

7./

Cc

7/

6H.3

3f,7

/OO,

3

I f

vr

Per Cut Certain Doubtful Total

0

o 1 7 1°).

100

36M

t

X //

70.0 3i-o

193

0.6 00

±L.

P4

c,o 0.0

/•/ 2 iLz

It

30.0 S~,0 a 3S~,0 5.0 UtD 2 9 0 36.0 0.0 ten —J— DO J2_ CO 0 -&l J2J. 0,0 0,0 0

o.o O.O s-.o

JU.

ff.i

ft

2.

*"/ 0.6

66,7 33.3

s:o

s:i tie

6.0

Q I

?

/r 6

/i.7 c,o

0

—30

o.o

/Vet.

C

I

IXf Z.3J 3m

!.(,

31

#</*

16-7

6O> s r

-&£ 0.6 o.o

JLSA buS 3 0

/DO,

/3

CO

I/-/

Nunber Percent Number Certain Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Tout Certain Doubtful ToUl

0.0

Percent Certain Doubtful Tot*

. 0 0 0

0

a?

?

J~

0 f

0.0 0,0

Number Number Per Cent PerCent Number ToUl Certain Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Tolal Certain Doubtful

3

S-Untoowi

Total

0 0

6,0 O.D

-£\ 0

1,1 _J2_ O 0.0 100,

Percent ToUl Certain Doubtfu

/

0 2

0 0

f-yf Nwnber Certain Doubtfu

0 fi

y

2 /

/9

JL

0.0

0.0

Number _j Percent ToUl Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

0

r>

n&

0,0

0,0 fl.b

1

0

9 / 0 n

<? O

0

-J— 0 1

0.0

o

/_J 1 0 0

0

*/,? 0,0 e,o o.o 6,0

Percent Total Certain Doubtfu

o

0 ;

Numbet Nunbei PnCent lertain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtlul ToUl Certain Doubtful ToUl

*

/V/ty Evaluation

0.0

0

0

B-Uotaow

0.0

0 0

o

6-lnsuflic bik. 7-Psycho lope*

(? 0 0 o

0,6

Pet Cent Number Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

U2J> 3'X.I


Evaluation

Number PerCent Ccitain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

P

0-Balloon 1-Astnmmial 2-Airaaft 3-LijM PlmoiL 4-Birds 5-CloudJ, Dust, etc

-JL 0 P 0

S-UMiffic kit).

0

7-Psyd»lo|ial

0 -JSL

S-IMnom mother

_SL

/

ao

3d

/0.2-

,r

1,7

/•7

-Jt

1-7 IS

S-J+.1 /°0,

PwCoit Cat3in Doudttul

D.0

14

Nunbtf PnCent Doubtful Total CtrtJin Doubthl ToUl

Tom

6

0

-3-

n

1

10

1

0 0

1

0

0 P,6 if p 'JM. Co <?,Q _£_ 1 S.f. O.O ,T,f _ i l P ..o.o. CO O.o

0 -goj <?,f O.o _AJ 0 0,0 0,0 JLQ. 0 o 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 0 o 1 0,0 0,0 0 0 0.0 ao 0.0 _£_ 0.0 / 0 /a __L o s~ IS fiO 5J JtSU

0

Total

3

0

32-

Total

/

/

Number Certain DouUlut

JL

0

o 0

U.7 ?/C? Tf,i< .rj 0.0

P

I

7

IT

ao

1,0 0-0 0,0

££. o.o ,M

1

0 0

O.O

z

O.o £6

o

o

o

O.O _JJ m 3(,4 .70 0.Q IS-U o,P 0 d.0 77 0 0 0.0 to

6

11. C

do //.(

0

0

0 ft

6

!/.(•

0,0 CO to IU CO

0

0 0

0

o

H

0

0

O.o

O.o

no, 33. /7

iLL

Hmttt OrtJin

Evaluation 0-Balloon

*h

2-Aircrafl

•7 6

3-Light Ptienon.

0.

1-Astronmical

4-Binh S-Clouds, Dust, etc S-tnsuffic Info. 7-Psydnlo(ical 8-Unknowi Miner.

2-Aircraft

5

o

0

6 .0 .

0

s~

JL o

0

Nunber Certain Doubttu /

a o

O

o

0 0

3-Ucfit Phenoa.

0

4-Birds

o a

6-lnsutfic Into.

0 _ ^

7-Psycho logical

0

5-Clouds, Dust, etc

B-Untanwn 9-0 th«

Total

r

2OtP

O _J2_

p

3

t)

f

r

l/i

i 6,7 240 1 0.0 0.0 fl.O o p 0 0,0 t?,0 r.o 0 0 .AO 0.0 0.0

f

fi,0 x 1 DiO 0.0 &o 6 JdSL ao I3..1 $ 0 0,0 0.Q i

I! 0

20,0 too, J f

1 p

o

0 D

0 0 0

0 0 to 'to 4,0 o 1.0 o.o 0.0 -JL p D -MA 0.0 t,0 0 D o.t> to.o 0.0 3 ao i.o P 1 k,0 0,0 0.0 3Z4. z IhO 1

7

U-.O

O.o

2&Q_

•x

r

i

_ /

0

0,0

7t.O ztto

O

ao

0 0

AO ?.?.?

0

0

0

_OJ_ o,o

0.0

2 1

u

c

lf.lt y.7

_£_

0

2 P P

O. 6

00 0.0 0.0 0,n 0.0 ao "0,0 0-0 0,0

(1.0

0.0

£4-7 o.o o,o

0 f.O 0 ,

0-0 0.0

0

0.0

o.o fl.O

3

/OP-0

0.0 Wo,

1

0

P

e?

Q_

z $

o

3

0 0 0

0

0

0

0.0 O.O 0.0 -ZA ISJt 0.0 0.0 0.0

AH

0.0

6/S 3iS

112

•T Q t

/

So

0.0

7 0.0 ISO S~ O.O -J&0. 0 0.0 o.o , e.0 6

0 0

J 0

0 0

I 1

/s 2-P

IPO,

6.f 06

0.0

P.O.

00

0

7 0

0,0

0,0 O.o 0.0

0,0

fo.t, 0,1

ao

A0

0.6

V.i

2-1

mo.

At

/"• 6

&&

0-0 P.P 0.6 IS,O P-° P.P 0,0 IO.0 CO (0.0 0.0 f.o •f.0

0 j 1

0 j f

10

0-

7 O

D

X£i(

o

0 0 2.

Pel C a t

Total

0

0 (? 0 0

o "2

J2

0

>r.P (s-.o too,

Certain

Doubtful Total

A£ 0.0 t.1 67.3 l-f JAL O.fi ",0 0.0

0.0

0-C

P-fl 3.0 p. a 0.0

0.O *•? 00 3.f f? t-1 \0.O 0.0 - ao 0.0 I*

ISS

fO0.

A/OL/£rrtfff-/r Ct-c r/*&f/? Number Pet Cent Number ' PerCent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total 3

0.O

0

#{.1 0,0

7 0 0

T 0

0.Q

0

0

0 f)

0 1

tf.lf 0,0

JL

o,o

,r 13

r p

(?

".0 7.1 0,0

t-0

{>

Number PerCent Nuaber :ertain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doutitfu

0

to

1 ?/ b 3 O 0 Q o <? 0

Doubtfcl Tot *

Certain

/

1

£s.u 36-6 100,

[_

/

_ j Nufflber Per Cent Percent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtlul Total Certain Doubtful

0 0 Q 71

o

o

/

4,-1 2.7 tf.l

PnCoit ToUl

Ai/6 v

Number Pel Cent Pet Cent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

1 fir

0-Balloon l-AstRmwical

vT

0 0 0 0 0 JJ__ 0

Total

Evaluation

y

0

Op

J~C/*Sf Number Certain Doubttu

Doubtful

0.0

/'°,

0 IP-

0 0 0 0

3 0.0 If-f ^ / 2o. ( M.I Mf $0.0 If-7 (1,7

0 0 0 1

6 if-

0

o.O CD 0-0 0.0 0.0

0.0

2.9

C.D

0.0

0,1

O.o 7,9

t/.e ao tltf t.D

2>H-

0,0

op Gu.7

0.0 J00t

6 0 0 0 1

0

a

,r0

-7

n

Ml }2j.

o.o

0.0

t,0

O.o

e,o 0,o o.o

0

0

0

0 0.0 1 3-7 O.fl ?<7 0 J2JL O.o 0,0

JL

o

6

0

3

0

XX

C.0

7.4 /ir pi 2 0.0

a

? ll. 1

0.0 PO UAL

r J-7 f/.f /fir

/to,


Fa/5

J* A/ !//>£</ 3

Nunber Evaluation

Certain Doubtful

O-Balloon

0

ToUl

Certain

Doubtful

o

0

o.d

Total

00

Certain

2-Airaaft

2 0

4-Birds

0

0

5-Clouds, Dust, etc

a

6-lrmiflit h b .

i

7-PjrrtokJiical

0

t-Unknn

X

I

0 0

P.o

p 6 0

0

0.6

6 6

2. lo.6 / S.I

5

Total

0.0 yo.5 0.0

2

0 o.o 0 0.0

6.0

6.0

1 5.3.

0.0

H

7 4.1 a.\ i l l 12.). o.b m.i

6 0

e>

0

o o o

0

6

a o 0

lid. Ji-3 I to.

M Evaluation

Certain

Doubtfu

Total

J Certain

Total

1-Astnnoaical

2

y

63 tf-0 /O.d Sd.0

2-Airaaft

O 0

0

d.O

d 0

3-Lijtit Ptiaxw. 4-Birds 5-Clouds, Dust, etc 6-lnsuflic Info.

d -2 d

o c

8-Unkmm

T

C 0

Miner

0

3

7-Psydnki(ical

/dd.

•EH

O-Balloon

Certain

Doubtfu

~6

0

1-Astranomical

2 0

2-Airaaft 3-Lijbt Phooo.

0

4-Birds 5-Clouds, Oust, e t c S-lnsuffic Into. 7-Psyanlojical D-Unknomn Wither

Total

d 3 $ 3 d

/3

d d

0

Certain

3.0 3%Z

0

2> d.6 0 At $ 0.6 ? 13 1 0 0.6 3 731

0

O.L

0

o o 0 0

0

0

1 O

0.0

O.b o.b 0 Oh 6.0 0 HI OA 3?3 / 3 o.o db O.b o Id —Ah <?. If 1- 0

o

0.0

0 0 0 0

*

0 0

O.b

*

_M a.\

ltd.

5 0 0 6 4 6 d d

d d 0 d 0 0

0

d

7

7/1 0.0 6-6 0-4 O.d 06 O.d fid 0-6 d.6 06 At 0.9 0.6 0-6 d.d d.d 16

a.

ad

a 4 7 d

0 0 0

d

0

7

d

d

6

0

d

/d&6 0.6

23

1

0 0

0

6

0,0

a

b 0

Certain

Doubtful

Tot *

3-1

H li.9 ot> us 2o.1

2&1.

d

At

0

JLL

0

M>

0

1 ZA

i 9

0 6

0

6

9 l\.t> 0.0

0

lao.o

0

6.6 d-6 d-0 At 0.1 O.b 0.D y].i> 0.0 O.i 0.0 Ob

a.oIb6.

Z_i/

Certain

Doubtful

Number Total

Certain

o.i Afi

Ail a 7 / $ /&1

0,6

di

ISL

106.

t

0

V

/

Percent Total

Doubtful

7

1

0

(1-0

Number

/

Total

6

— PerCent

Doubtful

H 7-L

:ertain

Certain

41 <#3

d.O llSi #3 .0.6 6.0 Ob

J' V

Doubtful Total

Total

0 cb OJb 0.0 0 13 IT-1 d.O 0 0.0 0.6

t/A/£

Certain

Doubtful

it I HI

0

V

61

Certain

ft,

3 0

0

6d

Total

Number

PerCent Total

2-

?0.f d.d a.O •o.o o.o J.6 d.d dO a.o d.d 29Z do 2$Jz 0.6 ad 0-6 0,3si-7 a. 6 0.3 0.6

?£?

Doubtfu

/

I

a

0

$

d

7 d d 6

f

/

j

/I

Total

ad £.4 1 yd 3 /. d 36. d

a.o e.d

a0

/r

Doubtful

HA Yd 6

/dd.

Certain

f

dd

06

6&

o.d od- d-d SJ d.d 2.0 a.d 44 fl.O d.6 V* d.d

7 AS

7Z-6 3-1.6 /to.

6 PerCent

Total

c

JLi

Percent

Doubtful Total

d

r

Number Evaluation

Certain

0 fid 0.6 0 o d.6 0.6 dd _A a dd d* d.6 6 0 2, /a.d /d.6 d AA 6.0 d.d /) j. d.d Vi.6 O.d d /5.i 3 /so 0-0

Total

m

Doubtfu

J Jff.t

J

II 0 3 3

O.b

Certain Doubtful

IX

O.t)

Number

0

O-Balloon

0

3.1

PerCent

Doubtful Total

7 1

i erCent

Number

3

i.

3 00 O.o 513 __^

Number

Certain

0

0.6 5-3

0

19

0.0 0.0

Total

erCwt

0

3

1-Astmroaical

3-Lijht Pnenon.

Doubtful

ISJL

Ml J

Nutnbet

erCent

m.o

Doubtfu

Number Total

Certain

Doubtful

/

0

/ d.d 6.0 ISM d.O a.o 0 OA 0.6 d d.O d.D 0 d-0 i3 1 0 Ad o.o 0 0J>13. /

1 1 0 0

6.0 d.O

d.0 0.0

o

O.d

9

0

(2.

6

0 0 X

Per Cent Total

/

Certain

Doubtful Total

00 /O.d /d.d 26-6 J O.d /AO /d.d 6 O.d 6.6 O.d 0-d O.d 6.0 0 0.0 a. 6 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.6 0 0 0 0 o.c (,0.6 d-b £0.6 O.d 0-0 /a

/ 0 .d / 6. C

964 P-d.d /dd.

Number Certain

0 $

Total

2

2 0

a

o 0 . 6 0 0 I 0 0 o f 0 / d 'd

/

0

f 1 S3

Doubtful

Certain

9.7

}

/6

*/3.i d.6 0.6 dd dd d.b d.i 0.6 0-d 0.6 '

H.S d.3 39.1

PerCent

Number Tola

4.6 O.b 6.6

d d 0

Certain

i.d

f s*

Z

/3

Per Cent-

Doubtful

O.b

$d in 0.6

/id.

d d

Doubtfu

Total

Doubtful

Total

4 7

JiL3

d

3.X ULA 3.1 0 6 -AA o.o 0,6 -AA o.t> 6.6 oA o.o 3.2 O.D 3-A 9.7 1.1 £>.5 0 0 ^5 3.1 LJ5 3.2

0 d_ 0

d

0

0

0

i 3

d / 3 2

d

a.

1

0

j

•2-0

Certain

d

1 / 3J

J5.5

HO.

i

113


ay

/fitt</ Cortjin

E»«\'alicn

Doubtful; Total

Certain Doubtful

a z

j^ $

,? o

0

<2J

0

0

0

o

/

nt us

.;-

1400 Od oJ> o.O J>.0 0.0

i-LiJtit Phtflom. I-Bir!h

0.6

0 a

o-o'u^s

0

0

0

6 0 0

0-0

S-Clwdx, Oust, tic

if

6-lnwrtic K b .

11_6

7-Pirdieloral

.0-0\ 0.0 37 /

0.0

5-LtrJ.no « i

0 37,/ 37

— t' S-OHw

0.0

-a n

3.

...L

Totji

Nufnber Total

0

7.+ .•••Aiicrjft

..

Nmber

\>wCoit

/

Certain Doubtful

Total

0

0

0

t>

0

0

O.O

0

0

0.0

0.0

o ^

0 1 J- IU Ik.l 1 1 _JL 0 0 0-0 0.0 o.o n 6 6.0 0.0 OJ) o

1 33-3

331 _&£. o.o

7O-0

OJO 0.6 O.D^AA. 00

0

0

0

OA 0.0 O.0 0 0-0 44-7 7 'Hi p 2 '33 —AQ.

o

C 0.0 3 5o.o

0

a

X

6

oo oo o.o O.o o.o O.O

0

U7 33-3

0

0

Doubtful

Total

0.6

0 0

5

Certain

o.o

0-0

no

00 ad

0.0

0 0 $0A CD

Q.X>

33.J loo-

66.1

Doubtful Total

0 0

Evaluation O-MIOTI

Cert;in J : v . c V . • "

I

'

.

Tci.ii 7

"

1-t.inmoial

0

o:

o

5-Clcuds, Dust, d o

;-PSTCtal0tlC3! o-Unbnm

<')•

L -6\ 0

n 1

1

0

o

9-Ottiet

Total

0

4

O.d 0-0

o

0 c

Certain

io-o DO 46-0 0-DVJ>A AA

«-Binh

S-hsufTic. Inio.

DoubtfulFTotal

1

?-A,n:rarl J-Uftlt PflBW..

Certain

Number

V> 0 0.0

10JL

0.6 -&&. O.o 2&JL L± ?0.0 0.0 r-JL 00

1

5 lo.o za.o

Certain

Doubtful

0.6

Ct>

ao

6.C

O-O

00

0

0

0

0 |

o

0

0

0

0 0

0 0

0

• 0

loo.o 04

i

0

1 loo.o

100,

0

/

&t> 100,6

1

0.0

0

ti.C

o.o Q 0 0

CD 0-1 03 f).<D 01 0.0 00 0.0 O.I 0-0 0.0 o.c 0.0 0-0

o

0

;ertain

ox

0

o

Total

0.6

0 0 0

0

Nuaber

Total

CL 0 J

a o

Q.Z

00

ox 06 o.s

. 0

Doubtful

PerCent

Ooubtful

0 0

0

Q

0

2

a

0 6

i U-1 o

0

O

a

3

0

00

2.

3

o o

\ W-\ OJO 0 Of) 0-0 0 Ofi 0.0

DMMM

Ofi

0&

0.C 0-0

ov 0-0

0-C

Certan

Doobtl,

/ 0

1

cs r

0

1

0

PetCent Total

2

Certain Doubttul

54

0.0

2

0

I 0

0

0

0,0

3

0

3 is.o

11-/ 0.0

M-l 93?

C jC

0 0

H-)

3 \

O

0.0

\l\

1

o

6

3 . *T64-7 33.3

loo-

1$

X

Total

Certain

0.0 ISO- .

00 0.0 Ob

OA

00 3 33.3 1 • ••I

o.O O-O U-1 o.o 0.0 0.0 0-0

0X> 1 <,.& ,? 10.0 0 0-0 0.0 0

'II

1

0

ox 166.

Total

Q

0

o

AtSo•

a

0

'O.O 0.0

0.0 0.0

NM0H

Certain

OJO

3 \00-0

0

Percent Total

Q &

0.0

0

J(/CU PtrCent

FerCent Certain Doubtful Tot a1

Total

/J3

? 00

nkmber

Doubtful

4-7

z

'erCent Certain

>rt*n

0

o

00

I

5.0

to 60.0 •xo 90.0

ToM

5.0 /Ad O-O fl.0 £.0 5.0 JS-0 0.0 0.0 0,0 O.d 15.3 0.1 O.0 0.0 lo.o 0.1 5.0

to-o 100.

S'a f re: Percent Eval'jiiK.i O-Batlocfl

Ccitin

i

a.-usv ij ToLii" Certain 1

-Ajtottnical '-AirciMt

•|

4

f

1

/t>

O!

i 6 0

2

0-0

0.0

QA 0.0

i-Ciouds, Ousf, etc

fi: 0

Unsuflic Info.

c z ill

O-O

-QA I / I b.b 3.0

$' I r

71 2Xl

• -• i

•* i

Totd

Certain

Z

('•'••

R:

Total

t>

0

rUnknowi

Per Cent

Doubtful

2

c o

Certain

;

J-Lijit P l m » .

S-Othei

Number Total

,> i

(-Buds

'•Psyc'Dlojpcli

Doubtfu

, • ; - / c;

0 0 n

0

o

a

O

9

II.1

LLL

'I'M 5.1 100.

__L

0 0

a a 0

3

Nunter Total

Doubtful

Certain

o.o 71 35-1 -

7 &

6 J±l JIB 1 o 0.0 01 O.C 0 o oo O.d 00 0 O.D o\d 0-t fl O.O 0.6 0.0 0 O.O 0.0 o.o 9ill / 0-t)

0 1

0

0

0 0

ib.7 too. II

114

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 (,

/

Certain

Doubtful

2i4 00 II?

0.0 0-0

/7

z

Total

o.v

0 0 0.0 0 1 5.1 O.O __/_ 0.0 / o.o 0

0.0

p.o 0-0 0.0 0.0

iS-3

00

106.

JO

/

<t

0 0

0

0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0

Certain

1 0

1 II

Doubtful

Total

9.1 0-0 9.1

3 ISZ

1

0

0.6

ft 0 o.o 1 JA 0 AA 0 O.O 0.0

Doubtfu

0

0.0

n2 4-1& nl\

PerCent

Number

Percent

Doubtful Total

Q.I

10.3 0.0 3L4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 9./ 11 9-1 dd 9.1 0-0 ?•/ o.o d£ OA

•?/

^

3-1

100.


J awvAet/ Number Evtfution 'O- Balloon

Certain Doubtful ,

0

a

(•Birds

0

0

S-Clouds, Dust, etc

0

0

0

6-lnsuflic. Into.

0

a

0

7-Psyctological

2 2

0.

2,

0

Total

.

0,0

n.n

0

Certain

Total

Q$ 0.6

2

2

7

d 'V

6-0

6 6 \ 0

0.0

(?

P 0

15. ?

OA 133

5 Z

(^0 •££

2

3 )

1

3

2

5

0

0 0

6 1

I

1 OZI 1 37

1 0

III

1

3-7

0.0

3-7

3

0&

J7

4 /

0 <\

4

HS

10

J.T

/4-

0

OJ) Oi 33.1 5?0

Evaluation

Certain Doubttu

2-Aircnlt

It

Jl

H i jht Ptienon.

3

4-Birds

0

S-Clouds, Dust, etc

5?

Olnaffic kilo.

t

7-Psycliological S-Unknowi

0 10

O-Balloon l'Astronofflica! 2-Aircrafl 3-Lijht P h m * . 4-Buds

•ft 3 a-7 P 0 0 7-J 53 0

s

0 0

o

71

1

It,

0.

I

0

l« 1

38

0

/0<3.

0.0

tf?

"3

Percent Total Certain Doabth

22 10 j

1

//

2.

l_

'J'V

J

-k

H

36

Certain

Doubtful

12

/fi

1$

5 0

1% 1-7-

|.^

Od

u 7.4

S>.6

zsi

a.d

/4

13-

2.

Wther

2

dd

il-l

Certain

JT.1 )0d.

0 0

60

Total

Doubtful

3.4 I3.L

1

O.I

o

Q.0

o ?6

f

Jl±

33 111 7 3.4

ft

10 1

HZ 106.

Certain

2,5

t1

Z3

ML

54-

4 ^y

a

^.

/

ad

Q

Total

-23.

7o > 2-

75.?

Certain

Total

Certain

Doubtful

3SX)

5

13

^^

n-.l ff$ 43 +3

3

t

4i

2-

8 3 1

3

S4

6

6

3-0 0.0

II

0

t

4-3

4

C

d.0

1

Q_

ii-2

ff Z

33 /<*>•

e

115

Certain

•8 a A

'1

0

2.

0.6

m

7-9

1.0

3?

1-0 0.6

00

0-0 0.0

9.7

HI 10

id —MA 0.6 33 i l l

0

2

12-

103

0.0

MA

ifl

I). & 100'

45 SO

SCI

J03 11.4

77 1.1 16.2

U I1.4

1.3

1.5 2 ?

43

XL2

II 0

i

0 <\3 14

1X3

Certain

Doubtfu

3 <?

y /

0

OJO

60

0

OJD

_n

06

*

»

• 3 a-3 0.6 23.4

3*.

/•3 /Ol).

PerCoit Total

J

Certain Doubtful

OJ

6

0

0

6

3

l-i

0

0

0

233

d

•22.

d

3

Total ^^

zo ft.1 141 t.i O.d 0 o.b 6.0

3

4-1

.3

.3

3T) L9.1

jg.4-

100-

c^.0

O.O

1

Q

3-74

l&

U-1 lf.4 f-1

do

Certain Doubtful Total

Number

0.4

it

41

xi

PerCmt Total

5

Total

Ooubtfu

V V

Doutitfu

1

•1

/'•? 4

0

_?3-

35

CO

P « Cent

II

II

Total

13

2 1 A-T

f

a.d Ad

Doubtful

ifcS

0

513 /in

1.2.

I

0-1 a/.8

ft 15.1 3

ys

Number

Doubtful

/•/ o.O l-l 43

Certain

10

M.

Percent Total

Total

Doubtful

It-Z II.3 3«f 133 ll-l 43 43 45 123-SL 2-H IS.1 /I-3 Oi IX, 2_ /t (.5 5 •5 OJ) 4 •5 1 Ob 4 • 1 .4 1 5

4.0

O.i

176

1 1 0 \

lertain

s$

**)

/7.5

Number

PetCent

in M.

0.6 0.A fit ir* Oi 23

6*

Ninoer Total

7-+

4-2

0

J4<3

•4

0

o 0 \

3 /

o

/2 1

33

2.5

<f ?£• ?.

m

4)

0

0

0.0

0J>

Total

Total

/It/&VST

Nurt.tr

7.7 IX 3J l>$ IS 0

^)

Percent

t>2*

n

o.o S3

111

t-Unknoan

Total

d.0

Q.0

1° w

/2 /

7-Psychological

Q.O

Doubtful

it

1

6.0

6

Number

S-Clouds, Dusl etc 6-lnsulfic. Into.

M

Certain Doubtfu

4

Total' Certain

ia-

_L3_

Total

Number

("i?

1

9-ODier

Evaluation

Doubtfu

Total Certain

11 J l !

O-Balloon 1* A StfQAM I CJl

Percent

19

0. 1

z

Certain Doubtful

1-1

31

Ji/i-Y Number

Per Cent Total

0

x?

13

3

Doubtful

IS

IT? '

3.1

(?0

0

Certain

0.0 • Q.0

0

'

Total

S.T

6

/

Number

Doubtful

04

0.0

Q.b fit Oi

Certain

0

O.D 0-6

0-0

Per Cent Total

4 H.I 1

o.o 0-0

,-? 1883.3 114 loo-

26J_Hi-

Doubtful

1

5 (j

;ertain

17$ n2

ll.

6

133

A J13

O.fi

4

6.0

O.O 0$

Number Total

Doubtful

5.4

().^

1

4

II

Doubtful

4

»i7

6

3-Ligtil Ptienom.

t-UnluMM

:ertain

/

tf 0

Percent

Number Total

0

t

lAstrononieal 2-Aircraft

rerCail Total Certain Doubtful

Z/.2.

A5 0.0

6.6 Q.d 0-6 4.L

4-. I O.O

23A

0.0

0.0

fi.d 33.4

+.1

id U--I

100.


. 7AA/UA ff Y Number Evaluation 0. Balloon

1-AltKmMICal '2-*itajfl

2 18 3 <? 0

2/

_^J

3-lijM Ptienom.

<?

4-Bnds

0

S-ClowlJ. Dust, etc.

<?

0

Tl

0 0 0 )

6-lnsuftic kito. 7-Psydnloral t-Unkno«n

Mtnei

Doubtful

Total

5 ?.?

? *

<?.J

2C7 1 7.5 0 DO 0 0-1 0 &0

32 S

Certain' rooubtiul •"Total

_1

2 H 5

CM

8 2

U C

Certain

25 '3.6

6.1

/

0- Balloon

Certain

19

J

19

8 IS

1-Astranomical 2-Aucrafl 3-Lictit Ptienoa. ••Birds 5-Clouds, Dust, etc 6-lnsuftic Info. 7-Psychological B-Unknonn Wider

Doubtful

3 i

0

7

0

22 0

0 Q 0

'13 7

2

Total

H8J

3 8 II -3 _ L 0

O

If

5 0 0 0

0

0

»•« /CO

0 0 O.o l-7>

3-5 /J.8

3

0

0

0

f

Q 0

7

75

3 O.O

1± 20

PeiCent

Number

Doubtfu

Total Certain Doubtful

Certain

3.}

6 2f

IS. 3

5.3 70C 13.0 10-" 72.0 Q.O 1-1 1 I 5 2 9.0 / 3 11

Jo / 0

1 /•I 0.0 / 3 0 0.0 If .7 0 3 2? M.I 0 Q.O 0.6 0 . 0 c XI /S.3 o.o H.

f

Tool

1 21 IX

PefCent Certain Doubtful

10-f

nx

Total

0. 0 /O.f 23.5 V0.7

0

0.0

1.8 c.o

0.9

0 0

0 0

0.0

0.0

HI

t.l

hi

13 / 0

9 0 0

0

>rt»n

'S JA_

Doubtful

m 02.1

is? 42

Total

Doubtful

Certain

75" IU 111 0 OJL 3 Id

2 to /2 27 7 ff

Nmber Total

If

II. 1 25-2 (,-Sni 0.0 0.0

Certain

Doubtful

7 %

3 3

Total

P a Cat Certain Doubtful Tot«

19

Z-l 7-0 10.i 2t 19.1 7 31 It-7 HI ?/. / 0 O.O 0-1 1 I •> 0-1

00

__T 1-9 ~^P 0.0 90 0.0 0 .1 / 0.0 o.f 11 0 0 •0 o.o •0.0 D.O 3 ^.7 O.O t l IS 0 / * It.o Q.O IU Ql 0 HI if. 8 00 if.f 0-0 0.0 o.t 0 0 J 1 JJL O.o If O.o 7 0 e o.o 00 0 11 a.? o.o lt-1 12- 0 tl. Q.t 49.6 29.6 ? 1U o.o 111 11 tf.o Q.O I-H2 0 i-H / t / f -2_7l 7 im 0.0 ni _±_ 3A 3 JOS.

if

0

0

_1

0

Tut p

Total

Certain Doubtful

35

til

Number Total

4 0.0 0.0 21 II-f 0 0 i 3.0 3$ ip.f 0.0

o.o

Ill

lertain

10 17-f lO.if- 128 lot

lt-1 i-5 lit2. o.S O.S 10 o.o o.o 0.0

201

3 3-t 100. 112 If

'07 U.t

•7)

Percent

8

(J.O

Percent

Number

J~l/A/£~.

73 HO 31 15.1

ISO

If

Total

7 //

/ ST f

Numbef Evaluation

Certain Doubtful

fl-0 (7.0

10.0

2H 80

Tolil

Number

Per Cent

104

JJL -3

Q.O

fl*

3.0

If.9

11

9 i¥i

QS

i.o 21

20-f

no

Doubtful

It3

10.1

Total Certain

"/0

S8S /fO

Iff.

AvtesT Percent Doubtful

Nmber Total

Certain

Douutfu

Total

PerCnt Certain DoubtW Total

¥7 SI -££ II-I £. 2 191 If £1 in Lf 7 C if II 1 »l 191 / 3 . 7 10.5 H8 18 MZ 1 ¥ 7 It 1.9 O.S 1.3 3 0 0 (, o.t- o.t •8 0 0.0 1 0-1 01 1 -ML .X 0 1 1 0 81 10-5 0.0 It-i tfX 0 v-x 1 (1 -JJL 9 17 / • 3 1.0 I-1 1 0 0 /ft 0 8? 18.8 o.o 18.8 87 i $ l(. 3.1 O.I 3.2, It

98

I f

nt

in.

77'5 7S.S

7.4- /.f.l /U3

S.f

u

19,2 7,1

0.2

p. 2

0.0

00

'9>H

2A 0,0 Iff /,! D.3.

21LIS8 ¥¥f

/CO.

Srrrerrt #£-*> Number Evaluation 0- Balloon 1-Astnnomical 2-Airciaft J-Lilfit Ptienoa. 4-Binh 5-Clouds, Dust, etc &.|nsutfic kilo. 7-Psvtholo|ical

Doubtful

6

13

'f

II

V /

10

7J_ 31 1 1

0 20 3

Total

1 7 1 0 0

Total

£ 3 ni

63

Certain

Doubtfu

J.I

6.0

3

6.0 24-7

//

if I f7.Z

Number

Percent

Number Total

Certain Doubtful Total

Certain Doubtful

Total

Certain Doubtful

Total

Number Percent Percent Certain Doubtful total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

0 ' 2 20 -££. 1.2./3.6 J_ / ? 17 /D.O / ^ 2 0 20.$ /*.? Jl.? Iff >? 3*1 2? Z 3 52. 12- If If 12 /S79 1 e I f 2-5 61 /0.Z- (7,0 M f-* I 1 0 1 If AS 0.7 I I H M S.3 t7 3.V 0 /jj. t 0 ¥ /f 0 0.b O.D fit) 0 I 1 7 0 0 0.0 2 0-0 1-7 1-7 0 0 t>-7 0-7 0 0 10 /}.o q a 10 7 6-9 P-e 6$ 7 •0 / 0 2 0 / 0-7 M> 0-7 / J 0 0 23 3/ D.0 if-t Ml 23 0 3/ Ml P.Q 0 1 S 33 8 0 ZD 0.7 2.7 ¥ 3 P-P 3.3

1.1 8

f-7 6& Ml 3 O.S /P /•? 3 -Ml 1-0 /.r 1 pi -01 76 fO.k 0,0

0

5-Unknoan S-Ottlet

Per Cent

Certain

/•(>

09 {(/ /##.

r

f 3

M7

317

116

11

It

34X

86> ti

ITt

-JL2 t-1

1-¥ 18:1 10.1

0.8 0.0 0-8 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 1.1 o.o 7.7 iS Q.O Iff 0.0 19-1 18.I 63 O-O (> .3

ai

32.3

ISO.


* • # • < •

</£*& A Number Evaluation

Percent

Certain Doubtful Total

Certain Doubtfu

Number PerCent ToUl Certain Doubtful Total Certain OoubtM Total

Number PerCent Nuater Certain Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doutitfu

fi/t

IL

Percent Total Certain Doubtful Total

0-Balloon 1-AstranMical

tN \

2-Aircraft 3-Li|ht Ptienoa.

V

4-Binfs S-Clouds, Dust, etc

P.

V

HA

HJnkwmn Miner

NnriM Certain Doubtful

ToUl

Number PeiCent Per C w l Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain DoubtM Total

1-AstnnMial

0

2-Aircraft

2

3-LiiM Phenon.

0

*-Biids

6

5-Clowh, out. ttc.

0

6-lnniffic. K b .

a

~T

rs • V

7-Piydiolo|ial

I H1

8-IMantm 9-Qtht>

32

1 13

12

Nwba Certain Doubthi

4-Birds

0

0 0 0 0 0

i-Clovds, Dust, etc

0

0

6-hsuffic Ufa.

1

.?

0 Q 0

n

0

1-Asomoaical 2-Aircnft K i | h t PhenM.

7-Psycliolo|ical S-lMnow Mttier

0 1

Q_ 0

1

P a Cent Total

Certain

Doubtfc

P a Cent Nun bet Number Percent • ;ertain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

0 ; 7.7 9J 1.1 Q 1 / 9.0 7-7 -J.I _!__ 0 X IW OJ H-f 0 0 CO M 9-e i 0 0 Q.Q o-d o.o 0 0 0 O'O O.O 0-0 0 0 3 7il Q.O •J3-J (> 0 / Q.O 7.7 0 0 4- 30.2 O-o 30.9 0 / m gj 7.7

i

O-Balleea

O-Balloofi

*>

\

Total

Evaluation

v

\ \\

\

;-Psycholo|ical

c

y

y

A

6-lnjuftic. Info.

Ertnbon

\

J

7.1 no.

9 3 2

0 0

0 0

1 0

c

s

2 /

0.0 13.0 10.2 4-7 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.O 13.0

0 0 (, I3.Q X 0.0

1

0

/5

7

n

0

0

Q 0 0

1 0

o.o If.O

2

f.i

0

0.0 37.6

0

0 0

0

0

0 0

0 0

15- X (00.

0 0 Q Q

10

1

Nuabef P a Cent Number Percent Nuiabet Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Oouutfu

0 0.0 o.o 1 ten 0.0 IC.1 0 CO 0.0 0,9 Q OJL o.o 9-0 0 0.0 Q.O 0.0 0 Q.O (I-0 0-0 1 !(,.! 0,0 Ib.l 1 (6.1 0.0 It,.-] 3 50.0 Q.O fro 0 D.O0.0 o.o

0 $ 0 0 0 0 0

0 2

o 0 0 0 0

1

6

7

0

0

0

0

O.O 0.0

10 0 Q

tV.J

0.0

0

11-1 U.I

• 1

0.0 O.t o.o 0.0 o.t 1,0

0

1

o.o 0 0 o.o o.o QO 0 0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0

0 0 0 0 9

0

1

0

(.0

0 1

cu,

1

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0

0

p

0

1

1

$.0

7.7 0.0 11 o.o IS* 0.0 0.0

0 _M 0.0 OJ % 23.) 33.3 0 0.0 Q.O OJ

(!•&

13.3 O.t O.O 0.0 O.O 0-0 0.0

0.0

333

0

0

0 0 0

OJ 0.0 0 0.0 o.o 0 0.0 (3.0 J2_ 0.0 o.o 0 Q.O o.o 0 OJ o.o 0

I

0 0

0

o.o

0 3

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

II

0,0 0.0 p.o 18-7 1.1 27.3 t:t 0.1 0.0 CO 0.(1 0.0 Q.P 0.0 0.0 0-6 0.0 o.o if. 2 9.0 IB. I Q.O OJ 0,0

o.o l.Q OJ 90.9

tl

o.O IOC

Percent Total Certain Doubtful Total

o-o 0-0 0.Q It 5 0.0 0- o /0O.O 0.0 Q.O 0.0 0 O.o O.O 0.0 0 Q 0.0 OJ Q.P 0 0.0 0-0 o.o 0 o.o 0-0 OJ 0.O 6.0 0 ap P

o-o o-o

0

0 0

Q.0

0

5

IH°.Q

OP

0-fl

• '

Tolal

C

0

Q

100$

0.0 Iffo. 11

1

/ 3 BU /S.I

117

100.

2

33-3

It*.

0

o.o/oo.


r#AL£

A/7

£//tLi/s>r/an'

/6S

'r

c

0v

'&** AfA

Evalmhon :fr Balloon

Number Certain Doubtful Total

0

0

0

<f

I'Astmnomical

6

2-Aircraft

0

0

<j

0 0 0 p V 0

iJ-LijM Phenom. 4-Birds S-Clouds. Dust. etc.

7-Pjyda logical

Wttiet

Total

2 0

i)

6-lnsuflic kilo.

S-Unknon

0

0

0 ;,

ft o

1

D

8

t

/

«

Percent Certain Doubtful Total

Number Per Cent Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

O.O 0.0

mo

0

0.0 25.0 K.O

o.o

0.0 0.0 0 O.o 0.0 1-0 0 0.0 04 O.O 0 QJ 0J D.o 0

IL.l

0.0

0J /(•7 0.0

O.o 0.0 UP 9.1

an

33- 3

JL

0-0

0 n

9.3 JL

mo.

3

0 0 OJ 0.9 0.0 I 5 000 HOJ Q 0 0 0 ao O-O 0 0 OJ . a,O- O.O 0.0 0 0 OJ 0.0 Of 0 .0 0.0 ff.fi 0 0 0 0 at 60 -O.a 0 a II 04 0-0 0.0 Cp OA 0 5

2

fa.O

tee-

NUHOH PetCent Number Certain Doubtful Total Certain Ooubthil Total Certain Doubtfcil Total

0

z

0 0

0

0

0 0

0

0

n

0

2

0

Q 1

0 0

0

y

5

¥

1

0.

X 70 0 9.0 20.0 0.0 20. P 20.0 3 39.0 0.0 30.0 0 0.0 Q.Q 0.0 -I m.o Q.O 10.0

u

0

0 •5

a

%

a

O 2 0 0

Z

& 0.0 0.0 OJ 2 V-1 OJ 02.1 0 1.0 o.p 0.0 1 1.1 <M 0 6.0 CO 0 1.1 0.0 on

0

Evaluation 0-Balloon 1-AstronMicat

0

1

/t.o

</ 0 0

</ /

/t.o

0

0.O

1 fS'-6 ftf.df III.

1

0J

8

/O

2-Aircnft

1 1

3-UfhtPlMMW.

0

4-Binb S-Clouds, Dint, etc

a o

frlnsiffic Info.

3

7-Psvchok>|ical

0 / 0

S-Unkno<n Mthet

Total

6

0

?

0

1

0

Q 0

/

•o

0

Q 0

az

2-Airctaft

1

0

3-Liftit Plwnom.

0

0

4-Binb

0

0

(1

0

6-lnsjflic. K b .

0

6

7-Pjvcholofical

1

0

S-lMmai

0 0

Total

' 0

1

0

Q

0

Q

o

0

0 .0 0

3

0

Q

7 66.1 00 U.l 0 0 0 Q.O 9-0 0 0.0 0.0 0J Q.O

Number PerCent Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful

H t+

2

i

0

c

/

0 0

0

0

0

9 0

9.9

0.0 Q.O 0J 0.0 OJ 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.0

'5 109.0 0J- ICO.

V

H

0-t 0 00 0.0 0.0 / 33.1 0.0 rU 0 0.0 O.I OJ

0

/

s 1

If

0

0 0

r

s

Nuabet Total Certain Douutfu

0

3.7 US if.e /f 8 2f.$ it.9 1 f 217 3.7

7

Q Z

1

1

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0.0 3.1 1.1 3-7 3.7 0J 0J 1.0 OJ I I O.o 1.1 0-0 0.0

0

s

if. 6

t.e 0J

0 0

/ /0

I

3.7

1

ft*

a 0 0 0

1 c

V 2 7 70. f 2U M. t

P a Cent Nuabtt P a Cent Nunber Certain Doubtfu Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Jotajj Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtfu

1-Astraaical

MOwr

oo lO-O

o.o 0.0 d.O

I 0

$0.0 71.0

fM.

PerCent Total Certain Doubtful Total

'X 0.4 10.0 2 10.0 Q 0.9 0 0.0 0 u 1 11.0 0 i.e 0 0-0 1 0.0

t

19- 0 28.0 H9.0 16.0 10.0 t.o OJ OJ 0.1 0-0 O.O 0-0 IDJ 0.0 I I Q-t Q.I

no

lO.O

16.0

1 0 10.0 il.O III.

0-Balloon

5-Cloudj, Oust, etc

/O.O

10 69.0 Ht.O /OS.

JL —

Evaluation

0

0

6-0

0.0

0-9 IQ.o 0-0 0.0 U U_.O 1.6 0.0

sr-

Number P a Cent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

0 u 0.0 9J 2 lo.o Il.O 20J a 1 il.O <).o 10.0 i 2 to 10.0 no i i o.o 10.0 jO.O Q 0 oo 0.0 o.o 0 3 30-0 60 30.0 0 0 00 a" o.o

o

o.O

1 0 6.0 9-0 O.Q 0 1 II-I O.o IIJ 1 H 0.0 HH-A />

m

i7~l>fl/ £~ Percent Number Certain Doubtfu Total Certain Doubtfu

Percent Certain Doubtful Total

0.0 1 •0.0 / HI OJ •0

X

0

0 0 1 IL.l

Q

1

Mi

1

33.3 33.5 111 0J /'•? 0J 0-0 9.0 J.0 tl-Q •16.1

•O.O 0 1

>(•!

9.0 0.0 0J 0.O 111 n-i 33.3

3 / / / / Q

V 0 1 0

ccn 100. /3

IS.O 30.0 / 5.0 IS.O 20.0 1 0 1 5.0 0.0 {.0 H\ s.o (1.0 0 9-° 0 1 /O.O 0 1 f.Q 0 0 9.0 0,0 0.0 0 I 0 20.0 0.0 20-0 0 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1 19.0 Q.O lO-O 0 0 0 I OJ 0.0 0-0

'I

lio

3

1

•20

06.0

15.0

118

/OO.

It

1 0 0 0

a 0

0

a 0 3

Number PetCent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtfu

3 £ 1 IIJ /7-7 2 8 HI.7 *•? Vf.1 _JL

H 0 0 0 1

0.0 0.9 OJ 0.0 0-t 0.0 0,0

M.

m

•1 1 0

234

c

1

OJ 9.1

0 0 0 3

0

0 O

0

O

1 D 0 0 3 0

JL JL

O O

2

C9

0.0

0 o-o 0J 0 0.0 $0 6.0 1 0,0 S.I f l

0

Per Cent Total Certain Doubtful Total

n.6 /if- IS

Q

7

9.3 0.0 S.3

Id.

33-3

0J

0-0 o,-o '0.6

JJL 4A - ^ 0J 0.1 17. S 0.0 IS.O

9,0 0,0

0.0

d-9 /2.S (I'O 4,0 0.0 O.o t.3

624 37.5 /CO-


s s 7/1Pet Cent

Numbet Evaluation 0-Balloon lAlllOTOBIdl 7-Airctitl

Certan Doubtful

0 1 ,H

Tola] /

0.0

d

/

5 0

0-0

0

0-0

0

QJL Q.O 00 iT^i 6.6

4-Birds S-Clouds, Dust, etc

0

0

0

0 0

7-Piydnlo|ial

0

0

t-Ur*MMi

3

Mttiw

I

0

a

IO

9

Total

Per Cent

,

;ertain

D-D IU

0

9

57.2

7

1 7./ <7 OJ

0.0 7-/

2

Q.I

0

0.0

U

0.0 1.1

Q.0 0.0 o.o Q.t

0 1

ff 0 0

Certain

Doubtful

7 I't.l

Q

9 1M\ fit

1

Q

o.o

Q.Q

Q

0. Q

0.6 0-0

0

Q 0 0 0 0

0

0

1

7.1

U

0

1

1-1

o.o

o.O SS.C

/no.

/ 0 ! /

B

9-t

o-o

0-0

11 SZl n.1

(*

Numbet Total

Total

Doubtful

2 7«

o.O o.o\ o.C 3 IC-I O.o /t-7

1

Certain

2 2

S.I, Ml

1 0 0 0

6-lnsuttic kite.

Doubtful, Total

l/.l 21.1

0 0

3-Li£ti| Pfienom.

Certain

Number

Doubtful

0

a

0

0 X

0 f 0

a

0

7-/

0.0 1.1 7-1 /Ot.

II

Number

Per Cent Total

Certain

0

0.0

Doubtful

O.o

Total

Certain

0.0

is 2Z41 3S-5 581 2 i-S 0.9 es 0 o.o O.O Q.O 1 i.S 0.0 o.O 0 O.o o.t H 11-1 1.0 17-f Q.O 9 0J s 16.1 0.0 /i.l 0 o.o o.o o-o

If* 35-5

3/

/

Q

7

1 0

-? 0 0 0

S 0 3 0

19

100.

Doubtful

Evaluatnn 0-Balloon l-Astionooiul 2-Aircrift 3-Lijht Phenon. 4-Bir<h S-Clouds, Dust, etc (•Insuffic. Info. 7-Psycholo(iul fVUnknoMi MUier

Total

Certain Doubttu

y ? V 0

f 5

0

0

f

37.

o

Certain

2..S it* 10,0 3-1-5

ns

0

6

Total

7 10.0 7.5 n-6 0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0 Q.O o.o $.0 0 o.O 0.Q 0.6 / / 31.S to JL7S Q 0.0 0.0 0-0 (, IS.O Q-0 IS.O 0 0.0 0.0 0.Q

0 0 0

0 /'

Doubttu

10.0

/

0

0

Total! Certain

Number

8

28.0 10').

Doubtfu

Total

/

O

/

/

3 / 0

2

/

o

0 o ff

Certain

Doubtful

-Jd. s-.f

5.1

t

00

17-1 '•7 0.0 1,0

Number

0 0 0 0 0

Total

*f 23.5

0 O

0,0

0 O 1

6

0

I

c

I

0

13

O-o

n

Doubttu

Total

0 $ 3 0

/

/

(/.»

JA g o.o (1.0 0.0 us o.o 119 1 s.i o.o 4.1 i 35-3 0.0 IS 3

0 2 /

:eftain

J ff ff 0

1

o

if a.

7

Total

Certain

Total

t.a

•O.i

O.O

o.o >H 0.0 o.o 9-9

7, 1

1.9

0.0

00 /:?•?

W

.LI

0 9

yj.e Si. 2 iff.

Total

Certain

lO.S

o.f 0.0

to Off

is-8

1

S3

n m

Doubtfu

100.

(J5T Pet Cent

Total

Q

Certain Doubtful

Total

O

u z<>

o

i.%

ff

n>

0.0 0-0 OJ V.5 3 0 31 2.C 2 3 7-t S.I 7 7 0 0 0.0 O.o O.O 0 o.o o.o tl-0 0 9 o.f e.t CO 0 9 2 S.I 0.0 S.I 2 Q o 2 I o.o 5-1 / 1 0,0 0 • o 0 0.9 o.o i-0

c.U t-7

0

•f-3

o.o o.o

9 1 1 0 0

31.2 3/."2 ll.i IB.3

3 0

Certain

0.0 C.I

5" Q.O 3 o.o o 10 1 IS.O

1

3 O 2

Certain Doubtful

Total

o o

Number

Percent

Doubtful

S.3 o.O V 36.9 J.3 z 18.5 0.9 p 9.1 o.f 0 Q.t) 0.1 0 o.o. 0.0 5 o.o 0 0-1 O.o 3 US 0-0

Au& Pet Cent

Certain

/

Q

J~~l/A/£r Per Cent

Nunbef

PerCent Total

7

32

Certain

Doubtfu

3?

111 fo.J

Total

Certain

i.l

100.

1

Pet Cent

Number Evaluation

Certain

0-Balloon

/

1-Astromiiiiul

0

2-Aircrafl 3-Lirnt Pfienon.

0

t-Buds

n

S-Clouds, Dust, etc

0

6-lnsuffic Info. 7-PsychologicaJ D-Unknowi Wither

Total

2

Doubtfu

ToUl

Doubtfu

Total

;

3.3.3

0.0

33.3

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

8.9 CO 0.0 O.f d.0

• 0

0 0 0 0

•2

CC.7

9

Certain

0 9.0 Q.O 1 OP 1 (?•(? Q.fl 0 0 0.0 0.0 o-o0.0 0

{) 0 0

0

d

Q.f o.o 0.0 0.0

0

0

Q.O

3

0

3- lOO-Q 9.0 1$

0.0

0.0

Doubtful

•o

0 0

Certain

Doubtful

0 0-0

0.0

Total

0

J /

Nuflter

Pet Cent

Number

Certain

6.0

9 ILL 33-3 % II-1 II-1 0,2-2 9 O.o 0 0.0 Off OJO 0 0.6 0.0 00 X 22.2 0,0 322 g O.o 0-0 0.0 i ll-l o.o III

2.

0

0

0

I 6

0 0

0

0.0

S

H f

550

CO

119

Q if

Doubtful

/

0 0

7

0 0 0

/

0 0 & 0 0

Doubtful

0-9 i l

/

0

Number

Pet Cent .

Q 0 0 0

0

O.f

0

0

too-

Q

1

15

L-7

73.H ZL1 1A c-i Cl

9.0 9-t

o.o

0

/

2 2

if

C % 6 0 0 1 0

0

o.o o.o 6 o.o (10 O-O 0

o.o 0.0 o.o 1.0 O.O

0.0 00

0.0 13-3

0 3

00

2

o.o

qt.o 60.0

100.

Per Cent

/

0.0

/33

0

1 0

Total

1L

Q 0 0 0 d 0 0

/3-3

Doubtful

Total

o.a (-7 U.I 19-0

0.0 133 0-0 0.0 O.O Q-0 0.0 0.0 Q.O 0-0 O-O (,l (o.l 0.0 Of '0-0 3 Zo.o O.o i9-f

0 /5

/J-3

CO

13."$

o.o I1Q

73-3

Hi

104.


f EnlMlxxi

Certain Dafttful ^ToUl

] ASIIDOOPIOI

0 0 3 II

7-Aircraft

0

O-BJIIOOI

<?

_

4-BirCts

S-Clouds, Dust, etc S-lraiftic M b .

i

7-P»y*olofcil

_JL 1

To 111

Certain

IAJL 00

1 2

O.Q

CO

0 0

a 0 0

0 <?•

o.o\fi.$ O.o o.O

0

0

0 0

0-0

<?

i

H

Q 0 ^

C 1

6

0.0

hrr /oo.

e 0

0 0

o.O 0.0

0 1 s <, 0 0.0 \j/7

:ertan

sH

33.3

JL

27-7

0 0

o

9 o.o O.Q _L

n

OJ ll.l Q.O 1/./

rn

77.8

If

Tolal

Q.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1.0 0.0 Q.O S.G

9

2

%

lo

Tot*

0 tL Q

ZZT

~HJL\

/

oj i oo i.2 £-1 0.0 L.i

(

9

0

0 0

0 0

3 /1.7 0.0 i li-1 21-2 t 212 0.0

0

Number

Per Coil

;

Doubtful _Totat, Certain Doubtful

0,

0.0 00

1 1

•o

/

SOD*

Doubtful

Certain

IXS

0

<?

3-Li(til P M K M .

Number

PerCent

Nunber 1

0

Evaluation

Certain ' Doubtfu

0 / 1

,

jO-Balloon

/

I I-Astnxoniical !?-Aircraft

0

•i

0 0

: 3 - L I J M Pnenoin.

c

4-Birds S-Clouds. Oust. etc.

c

0

0 1

0

6-lnsuffic info. >Psydnlo|ical 'S-Unknoan

Total

i)

I

Wither

Certain

/f 3

Doubtfu

Total

Ooubtfu

Certain

0.0 h i

0

9.0 0 i.O 2 0 QJ 1 /f-3 1 0.0

19-1. 0 0. C '1 ( Q OJ o.o 0 o.o 0-0 __SL Q O-o 0.0 0.6 l i t 0 Q.t 0-0 0.0 It.3 1 0 1*4 113

7 V-i

28. (, Hi.

0 (/

Cemin

OouMhl

13* 2-1 0 4* 11.9 o.o 10.8 V / / ML ie$ 21.7 Q 0 o.o o.o o.o 0 0 OA to 0 0 o! o.o 0. 0 0 0 S 2I.C 0.0 11-t _ i 6 6 o.o 0.0 t-i / 0 it J0.9 1.0 ii.If 6 O.Q 104 lU 0 f

0

OJ 0.0

c

0 p

0 1/ 0 0

Certain

Doubtful

Tot*

Certain

q CJJL 0.0 ttf 0 Q.0 0.0 OJ 0 Q.0 0.0 0.0 0 JhL 0 o 0.C 0.0 OJ 0 (1 0.0 Q.0 0.0

a

OJ 0.0

0

7

0

u

I 0

Q

O.Q

0

00

D

0 ML

O.Q 0-9

0

c

0.0 too.

Doubtful

/

Q 0

Q

q 0

0.0 3J.3

ToUl

/SO.

11

0

0

0 Q

0

PerCent Total

Certain

Doubtful

Total

4.8 OJ 7 33.3 0.0 5 If.O 4.8 719 0

Total

0.0 5.3 d.C 21.1 iT? %\ 0.0 V.I o.o Q.O o.o 0.0 oc OJ Q.O 0.0 o.o

s.-i

/

0 0

Certain Doubtful

+0

0

0

0

01 0 0

9 3 1 C

0

0

0 /?

/S.8 OJL IS. 9 0-0 S3

•S-3 3f: C

OP

0-0

o.o

0.0

\loO-0

o.o

/oi).

0.0 0.0 0.0

Q.O O.O

o-o

PerCmt

Number

Certain

o.o

Q.O o.Q 0.0 't.9 0.0 0.0 OJ 0 f 11.0 Q.O tf.9 9.0 Q.O o.o 0

0 H I?.O

Doubtfu

0

/

0

Pet Cent ToUl

/lusv

Number

0 7. 30.3

0

Doubtful

Jut

Percent Total

Certain

/

-7 Number

Percent

Nunber

NiMter

Percent Total

2g

100.

V

1

Dourjlful

/

i

4 0

0

1

Total

7 8.7

. 0

0

0

0

6

0

(,

2

I

a

Total

9.1 7 4.1, 2CI 1QM S 17-f 9-3 0 0-0 o.o 00

0 0 0

0 0

Doubtful

Certain

0

0-0

9.0

d.O Q.Q O.0

Q.o 0.0 8-7 0.0

0.0

Q.O

26-1 Q.O 1 y . i o.O H.3 a*

Total

£

c

/oO-

20

t.9

1 2/

/Off.

16

\61.6 30. f

7

S7&t

£-/? Number ,

Evaluation

Doubtfu

Certain

O-Balloon

•J

0

0

0 C 0

' l-Astronormcal '^-Aircraft ,3-LiJtit phenoa. 4-Binfe 5-Clouds, Dust etc

Q

6-lnsulfic kifc.

3

7-Psycholofial

0 3 Q

8-Unkrnnn tOtner

Total

A

1

^~

0

0 0 0

PerCent Total

0

Certain Doubtfu

00 ? Qc JffJ

IS.H

0 0

O.O

Total

0-6

QJ O-o i$i

0-0 0.0 0-0 QJ Q.O if.O

0 3 23.1 0.0 0 CO 0.3 3, Hi g.o 0 to CO

0 13 loo.o Q-0

Per Cent

Nu.-nber

0-d

Ooubtful

Certain,

Total

c

/

1

1

0 -JL

1

'

Doubtful

7 MA 0 0

o 0 0

Q.O

_OJ) u

Total

0

2 0

e If 0

0-Q

a

c

D.C Oc

r

0 0

0 0.9 / JLL

0.0

0 0 0

0

0.0

9.9

12JL o.o o.O c.i

33.3

73.3 U.I

100.

OJ p-0

ion

0.0

£

o

c

ICO

Q.Q (,0.0

0-d

0

0

0

JA

0.1 Q.O

/•0

Certain Doubtful

10.0

0

M

Total

10-0 10. Q

is-/

f«7

Doubtful

0

0 0 0

0

Certain

Number

Percent

7

-JLL

0,0 O.O

P0.0 20.0

120

\

Total

0.0 I0.D

a

a

Certain

Nunber

1 IQ.Q I

100.

100.

0

s 1 II

<t

2 13.3 0.0 / A J 0 CO ~0~J^ ap ffO.O c 13-3 0 0.1 0.0 t?p 0

1

0.0

0.0

Certain

Doubtfu

f ? /

3

0

c

0

PerCent Total

C

Certain

Doubtful

Total

£3 U.I

31.5 1 4-2

\Jlli 50.0 Q.O

{%•

0,0 0-0 0.0

f.x

0-0

o.o

0

0

0 0

o.o

0.0

0

0

0

0.0 0-0 A.O

I

6

1

1-2

Q--0 Q. 0 0-0 4*1 0,0 t*l

2 L7 _J-

0

0

X 0 4.2

0.0 8.1 0.0 H.l

7

24- 10-2

0

I

11

*•?

0.0

109.


A/i,

Evaluation

Per Cent Number Ortun Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful, Total

2

0-Balloon lAstnnomical 2-Airtraft

L __d

3-LiIht Ptienc*.

3

/

1 1 0

4-BirHs

_£_

n

5-Cloudj, Dust, elc

__£ $

0

6-lnsiflit Wo.

S-UnkMM »-Othet

Total

10.5

IDS

0 0

0.0 0.0 CO

O.C •2CI

0

s

17

73.7

5 1

0

JJ

JA Mr

0 5 1

0

/

0

6.0 SCl

Q

S3 •15.2 IS. 2

0 s

0

7-PjydBlofical

% 0 0

/0.5

<J

o-o

Oj

il.O

oJ

d.C>

o.O

—1,

0

(I'O o-o O.O O.O i Q.Q 0.0 0 Q.i 0 AL Q.H O.O a a e.o o.d O'D dL CO II. 1 _J_ 1 i 22.2 O.I) ii

0

2 0

6

0

c 0

i

0

II-1 (3-D

?2-7

217

c.s 33 -3 33.3

Number Per Cent Doubtful Total Certain Doutttul Total

0 1 1 0 0

0

H\ OS

6

IOO-

///

/

z

o.c _<2_ 0-0 o.o _JL

; «

>rtjn

0

0

(1-0

0.0

Total

7 3

0 01

o-o 2C.3

Percent Total Certain Doubtful

Number Certain Doubtful

5 S.I

luJ.

0

Evaluation

Number PerCent Number Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful) Total Certain Doubtful

0

7

4-Bints

r\ »-/

1

HU L.C 0 0.0 / 7M-. OH 210 0 e.t Q.0 1 CO ?o.j\m

5-Clouds. Oust, etc

c

c

0

L.J

li.l/

0

D

0

o.o 3J

0

0 1 0

O-Balloon l.Astronomical

0

2-Aircraft

Q

3-Lirht Phenoo.

0

6-lnaiflic Into. 7-Psycliologiul B-UnknoM

L

(1

VOthcr

0

0

Total

Evaluation

t

5"

1

Number Certain Doubtfu

0

/

O-Balloon

1

1-Astrenoaical 2-Airaaft

_ / .

3-Ligtit Ptienoa.

0

4-Birds

0

5-Clouds. Dust, etc

0

0 0 0 0 0

6-lnvjftic. Info. 7-Piycho logical

0

8-Unkno«n

8 <

9-Other

Total

•IG

?

0 0

'0 /

•j c.o

Q.Q

0

0.0

0^ 1

0

OJ ~T cfi 10.0 0 o.O o.o 0

m no mo.

Pet Cent Total Certain Doubtfu

1

0

0

o.c

0

o s

. o.o fO.O

0

0

SI

j

0

i i

CO

c.o O-osic fl.il

100.

X.

t

6.0

-

0 0

0

0

r

0 0

3

0

C.9 0.0 Q.O Q.O an

Ml Q.O 0 ML O.O 0 0 c ro.o Q.I 0 0. M. O.O 0 0 rS.Q (l.Q

0

0

t 0

0

I

0.0 o.o CO i,0 00 0.6

0

1

im

ICO.

0 1

o.O

1 0

0 0 0 • o

0

0 3

o.o

/

J3-3

\

0

0 0

OJ

0

0

0

0.0 O.C

0

Per Cent Certain Doubtful Total

10 Q.0 0.0 0.0

o.o 33,3

O.D OJ) 0,0

d-d

Q.0

o,o 0.0

0.0

OJ 0.C Q.O£6.7 Q.0 0.0

a

0 0

o.O

C

o.o Jli

3

110.0

Total

PerCent Certain Doubtful Total

o.o iQQy

J~oc-y

Percent Tolal Certain Doubtful Total

9

0 0 0

0 0 0

Number Number PerCent :ertain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful

0 (

J_

0

1

li.l

O

1.0

Q.O C.Q

Q.O

O.Q o.c o.o Q-P 0.0 o.Q li.l li.l OJ 0.0 n-i

0

(?.«•

0

0

0

0

0

9 1 0

4y

0 0

_A Q.D _j_

m. T

O.o

ILL

Q

1.6

op

?

Q.Q

C«i

u

O 3

0

0

3

Q.O

l

Q.Q

3 1 1

.m //•I UJ

m o.o li.l

33-3

•33,3

1

7

0 c / o / 1 0 o Q o S Q O 0 7 ft /

0 /

/

o

mo. /s 2

7 K.Q M 9. 3 6 0 MA 0.0 0 CO o.O Q Q.O CO 9. Q.Q. (1-0 C o.c 0.0

M

1.1

0

T

1 O.c o 0.0 JL r>.Q JL 0.0 1

no

• 0,0

JL

/

4 0 0 0

o 0 0

?• 37.5 O.o V-5 0 Q <3 0 / H-7 c.o H.I /2.S

121

ml

II

0-0 6-1 C2 / SCO X.o n.o 1 n %/S-6 0.0 124 0 AJL OJ Q.Q 0 OJ O.c 0 0 o -MJ 0.0 0-0 0 0.0 6-3 1 / o 0-0 ' 0,0 Q.O J _ 0 j£_ 0.0 CO / o O-Q o.o 0.0 0

0

10

1

/

31.2 I0Q.

Mr

3 0

0-0

3

o

0.Q

7 JtLl /

Total

O

/

1

9S.7

0 A

o 0 O

"77

0.0 0.0 0.0 Ci 1 ?./' 1 1.1 1 1.1 0 CO 0

0

II

0.Q

CO 0,0

0.0 n.i 0.0 Q.O 0.0 fl-7 0.0

II. g

Ho.

PerCent Certain Doubtful Total

o 0

S.9 II. B Q.O 0.0

0.0 S'l ILL *7 '7-7

0 ILL

17

Number Number Number Pel Cent PerCent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful

1 0.0 f>-7 / 3 S.I n.i L 0.0 S-f ! s.f f 0 o.O 0.0 o.O 0 O.t 0 C __£ 0 0.0 6 0_0_\ o.s o.o 0 r 1 if.9 0.0 II.9 0.0 OJ o.O 0 0 8 <LLL Q.O Hi i 1 1 Q.O 11.2 L

n y?j

Q

1

Q.Q 0.1 D 33M 0 U-l T l Q.I) H.I O.C ^_.0.C U G Q.O o.c O.O 0 CO JLLJ 0.0 _ i .

an

u.% /O.I

0

J~u/vr

1 1

0 %.

Number Certain Doubtful Total

70.7

Q.0

1-1 21.} 0J u-<t O.O O.C

c.o Q.O o.c Q.O O.O 1-1

0.0 1-1 0.0 1-1 0.0 OJ ?•/

100.


JZl VL/ A £> r Number Evaluinon

Cettan Doubtful

0-Balloon

ToUl

12-Airaatt

C

3-Li|M Ptimom.

0

4-Bnite

c

S-Clouds. Dust, t i c

0

t 0 0 0 c

7-Piyd»ki|ial

t-

llMMMt

c>

MOW

Total

0

Ion.

IS

4

//

P « Cent

Number

ToUl

*.7 0.0 / 26.1 1C1 U.H 0 O.Q 0.0 0.0 00 0 0 0 0.1 0 o.o o.oQ 9 0 0.0 no <?J o<rO.O Q oo O.Q /J.3 A 7 ' 3 . 3 O.Q /3.3 0. 0 7- fi-i

c

(.traffic, Wo.

Per Coil OouMful

;erUiri

Doubtful

Total

/

0

/

/

/

1-A.strenomial

Ctrt»n

1 Z.

0 c

c / 0

s

1 X. <? 0

0 p 0 0

P JSL

Doubtful

5-t

Total

Q.O 5.6

f J21 I/I 22.1 ll-l O.O 0 9-9 O.o 0 Q.i O-O Off (? AL 0,0 CD / S.I. 9,0 0 0.0 0.0 77.8 0.0 27.$ ILL Q.O

' :ert»n

Numbef

3 / 3 0

/

/^

12-^

0

/

Hi

Doobtlul

HI 0.0

0

/ 0

1 fi 0

/

/

Total

Certain

5*. 3 Hll

u

/»(?.

O-MIOOB

1-AstJOKMial 2-Aircfafl

Certain

__£ /

*

/J-

J-Lifht Pimm.

3

4-BJirb

0 Jt

^Clouds, Dnt. etc ( - h a f f i c Into.

c

7-PsydnlO|ical S-Untnnin MtKer

Total

7 61

Doubtful

Certain

Doubtful

Total

Certain

/ 5 I2A f-s / 7.0 2l 1 (. 2 3 181 -JJL /x 2t 13. C Hi 27.2 XI 3 It oo i t 1 c> 0 O.Q 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 23 _JL £> \ 73 C c LSI CO OS rt 0 0.0 0.0 O.O 0 0. 0 /S.f /S.I It o M> «

/

8 JA

11 ft

1-1 1-1

78. H 11.0 IM.

Evaluation 0-Balloon 1-A jtjonoMcal

2-Airoaft 3-Li*l PIMM. «-Binb WUwos, Dot. etc

^

3-J~ _1 / / •/?

C-kanffic Mo.

17-

T-Pjjdolofcal

I

I-IMOOM Mtnei

Total

f

Certain

Doubtfu

as

Ooubttu

15 2-1 15 3/ iS.O l-\ 3/ Lt 111 3 Sjj X l-¥ jZ. 3 OJL I-H 0.0 01 / //

£? 1 (f

0

33

6

Certain

2

-

<

/ 33 71 .if

a

JLL

tH7

as

P 1 36

Certain Doubtful

Nunber Total

:ertain

0

0 o Q (?

U-7 121 n-i 3/? 110 n.i 7? no LJLR

3.7 60 111 /Q.C 25.5 1-5 73.6 o.c O.f .!, a Q.d 0-P _JL O.Q Q.0 O.f 1 O-O II-7 J&. if Ml 2.? 0-0 3-5 __2L 26 a.) 0,0 U.I /& 6 3-/ Q.i 3.1 JL

/(I

77t

?2V

Certain

u

Doubtful

Total

1-7 11

1 1

•H

u/

H.C /?.3

II-1 M-I

0.5

ne

n

lit.

Certain

H-Ik

Q.(, IM Q.-7 01 X 0.2 0-1 Q-H (? 08 10-t • 9 - 1 I9.lt I* IM 0.8 0 PI I8.B 0-9 1 1TL 0.1 if Jf-

75.1 Vt.7

If-J

II 3.3 Q 0.0 10 II.0 1 /•/ 32 35.2 1 2.1

r/

II

6UST

£ p 3Z-

_X //

Percent Total

Certain

.?? 75" ZS ic 34 75 t, /' 0

It 3 ll.l II.1

Doutitfu

1-3.

87.1 12 1 100.

NUBbH

PerCent

Doubtful ToUl

n.o

Doubtful

l-t JLL

1

1 UL P 11 1.1 2-3 1 (,1 H.l

%t

no.

1/0

~m

Total

2/r

11.7 7-2 1.1 l l O.O 0-3 0.0 O.-i Q.O II

2 0 If-2 3-1

3l. 5

190.

18-1 Z/f

31 0.0 o-i 1-7L

OcTa $£~/? Nnter ToUl

10.7 71.1

V* a-/

7.) 0-7 o.o 92 OQ- 0 7 Q.O 2Jf If

Total

21 17 H 1 IX 3«J / t? 0 0 0 0

/f

s

Percent ToUl

Doubtful

Sft? T£~S-t Ff/? Ikaber

Percent

Number

1 o

1 *

/}v Per Cent

Total

7

To<Jl

(,-C 0)9 lc-5 7 7 12-0 o.o I.I II 90 o.o 0.0 II. 0 00 }, i OH 35T-2

J.3

/s

0 10 1

ao

Per Cent Tour « « a m _ Doubtful

6

/

A//tf Number Evaholm

Doubtful

3 IS 13 /

».1 o o.o 0.0 0.0 f ±1 O.Q V-7 f.7 i o.O f.l HI 0,0 / HA O.o <? O.I 0-0 H /Cl 0 0 7 H-l 25.0 31?

li.l

J

Certain OouMful

r

o.o

,r

Percent ToUl

5 5

37. S 100.

Certain

3 /D

Doubtful

1 1

Certain Doubtful

ToUl

n (i

W.2 12-1 111 121 if.S f.C 5 AQ. i 1 ¥ 1. i+ Q.O I f 0.0 5.L 00 0.0 ISS o.o 2.9 1-9

IC-1

ft 0 1 0 H0 /) X 35

. / / Q 0 0

1 36

t4 2 | 0 /I ' 3

71

til

ro.y

122

Percent

Nuober

Per Cent Total

Certain

s Vi

Q_ Q_

?.{, O.Q

Certain

f

10

3-1

r

f.3 Id J.6 6 3 3-7 If 0 0.0 0.0 2 JLL 3.1 q. JL± Q.O 1 I f 0.0 1 0 21.C 0.0 1 3-1 o.o

j

3

5.0 _2^

2.0 l-f

ToUl

Doubtful

I 0 X p

o

1

t?

o

H-l too.

35

ll

•54

Doubtful

Nuaber Total

/HI /P.i 9.3 iP.C XL If-2

35.2

Certain

0

T

r.c

o.o 3-1 7-t 1-1

Doubtful

7

/ 0 P S

3.1

P // 3

IOO.

78

0 0 0

o &

Percent Total

Doubtful

z

Q-0 H.I 1 C >8-l IHC 1 2 11 72-1 / ?•/ Q.O Q.Q O.Q 0 Q 0.0 0-0 3 6.2 0 0 0 oo 0.0 ll

3 20

Certain

fit

2 If 4.2

Total

HI

n,

75.0 7 / 0-0 0-0

6-2 Q.O

o.O 17f

0 0

U-2

41-1

0.


Enliatm

Maattr Cert»» Doubtfu

0- Balloon

J.

J /}-

l-Asfcamical

/f

2-Aircnfl

ToUl Certain

5" j /

3

1

II

1A t ?

/2-1

r

/2 J-

at

0

O

0

O

0

0.0

<-Binh

O

0

0

at

5-Cloyds, Dust, etc

0>

0

o

(•Mtaflic M ) .

S

0 0

r

1 f

0

7-Psydcloficil

VXte

7-2.

Total

A/A Evaluation

Number Certain Doubtfu

O-Balloon

'7 £

l-Astnnoraical 2-Airctjft 3-Lifhl Pnenoa.

/J

1Z. 3

4-Birds

2.

0 •

frliauflic

It

Into.

S-Unknoan

17 2-

9-Otfief

Tot-

Evaluation

b

1-Astronomical

/

%

,

)

3-lijtit Phenom.

/

4-Birds

/

0

S-Clouds, Dust, etc 6-lnujfiic. hfo. /-Psychological

It

Total

27 z 2.

Z 2.

f /I /

If

f

ff

rs

*

ni

I.H #.S 1I.H IOC-

CO I.C S.0 "+.0

i /e O

P O O

0 6

0

7

0

/Of

0.0

10.1

20.0

V-8

11-9

91

11

0.0

M 0-0 Q.O

O.C

r.s

0-C Q.O

/t>

7 0

( 0

O.o

3

ss

/

/o

a

IP-i

0

0.D U-1

7

12 1

04

tin

73 /

30.?

ltd.

s~s

IP 'S

0

0

/0 0 13

6

?

O

u

7-2. ft'5

3 /

0

O.C

lOf

/?••

183

in

34

.3

t.b

3

j-f

11 12.0 US

u

/f AO I

If-D 0.0

0>.D

JC

U ao 170

3

Certain

1

\_r.f

*l

f f / 2

0.0> ff-7 t.c /a?

31 X

HI

S}.J mi.

m

1 i 11

7

?7

,0 I

I V

74

0 %

PetCoit Doubttal Total

Is.o li.l OB

JX

0

12 (-1 0.0 12.0 o.p p.o

O.o

ToUl

J.

7

/zo

2-1

0

?•

0 0

3V

/3

21X7

Per Cent Doubtfu

/so.

JS 1 0 0 J.X. /

7 /u-7

15.3

7-7

/t.o

31

M

13

21.3

CC

111

fv

OS

l.o

13 3

IJ2. 40 2. O $

0 0

0 P /

33

i8.0\

0.0 18.0

/J2/

0

S

18

OS

3&

/T3

go.3

ft-7

I

O

7-U 110:

Pet Cent Certain Doubtful Total

#70

ILL 11

/£6

lt-1

17

1-0 0.5

( •

2

•2-U

ss

£1.0

US

9-2

as 04 0.0

/(.S

0.0 00 0.0

6

•312

3-2

IC I

17-V

0-0

30.7

9fS It. 2

a

r

IK

33 20

n.9 0.8

I.C

2f

3

1

•14

u

3.2 O.g

O 2.

0 2,

M

D 6 7

0

7

1-7

0.0

04

1-8 O.C

I)

1

JLJL 19

CD 0.0

fi

/O

1

0

1

30

0

yo

I

3

47

0.0

o.p 0.0

nt

1 j_l

if.

17

0 0

73

7V16

f

o.S

ion.

1

2-/

8.0

no 0.0 2V.0 u 0.? 2-1

7S

•7.1

Z?

104

li-1 04

24

iff 6

Oo

30.1 /•&,

IK.

0.5 0/2

l.o

• 19

Ot

0

0.0 II. C A3

?•£

no

0.0

no

0.1

t.o

UP ?f II

2&3 100, Z7S

?-i

33

III

/i

It-H

S.I

/O6

1

2-Z 0-1 0.0 0.6 Q-1 /f.9

•6

0.0 0-7 1-3

/St.

11-f

s-

7.7

ToUl

Certain

/ /

5.1

?^

J1L

O Cf

lit.

C1.6. 32.9\

79

O

O.f

3.9

P

17 0

40 /<?.S O.P 38

1.7

?-S

/

f

7-7

//

122. H-07

0> 0

Z

p.o o-2 0.0 0-7

1

O

to

C9.1 •3//

0.0 1.2

7 I

1.1 .

0.0

f

O

f

10.1

3J

ft. I 3.1

0.0

9.1

O.o

/

ft

ill

O

1?

If

U / / • /

1-5 IS

/?•

3<f,t>

• C.C.

-5.2

0

F.S n-7

±1

Per Cent Doubtful Total

II •* 6

Number Percent Number Certain Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Total CerUin Doubtfu

Cf 7-2

3? A?

A3

63% 73.7

/6f

CerUin

If.O

3.?

1

20

14 ICO / if ^ 2&M 8.2 ICO

0-2

Total

'S.I 7C.0

Cf CO

7* 114

/Z

It,

7$

1 f

7 /j. /

100.

3

g

2

33-1

0.0

6

1

4.1

fa

0-0 0.0 IJ.O 0.0 3.3

1.8

19 0.0 25.3 CO 12

o.r

3? 72

00

0

H* /o

/f-3

l/f

7*

0.0 11.6 3.3

Number ToUl Certain Doubtful Total

11 10.8 5 .if U l U.3 Ml

Pet Cent Number Number ;ertain Doubtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtfu

33

11

Q5.3

166

•t.o 0,0 0-0

1-6

H-1

12

10

_l_c_

7 7

J-

PerCent Certain Doubtful Total

123

.

X.

1

O /

5-5- tf.i

/•?

If

O 3

Number Total CerUin Doubtful Total

t?,e 0.0 /f.O IC 4 3

qP

ff

Percent Doubttu

IC

'6.?

3

r

/

•?-3

Total Certain

/ 0

3 /

n.2

/12 /•J.I

7

3

S-UnknoMi ' 9-Othee

/Z

0

At

^•'3 15.5 1-7 71.9 23-3 Iffl

?O

/*•?

Number Certain Doubtfu

0-BaHoon

2-AircraH

?-?

/PI

to

2% 30 5-

/6 Q

If

1.1

Total Certain

6

7-Psychotofial

0.0 O.O

08.6

£)

Number Per Cent Number >rtam Doubtful Total CerUin Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful

/

z

5-Clouds, Dust, etc

0.0 li.t

7.1

70

£ -

06

111

1

Percent Nunbcr _j :«tam Doubtful Total Cerbin Doubtful Total

2.1 12 ±1 Mf Hi

3-Lifjht Phenoa

1-IMMW

Per Cent Doubtful Total

PerCent Doubtful Total

/O.S -57.3 Q.O

m 1.0

0.0

0.0

(7.0

0.0

0.0

O.O

g.C

0.0

8.C

-LL

0.0

11.0

Ac

11 1/..0

Q-l 1.0

f

Q_

14

7}

32- fof

67.5

10-S

7.C 30.5 /SO.


of

A if

Evaluation

Percent Number Certain Doubtful Tout Certain Doubtful. Total

;

0/Balloon

Per Cent Number Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubltul Total

Numtm Pet Cent Numbet Pei Cent Certain Doubtful _Total, Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Tom

i

l-Astromaical

>>N \

2-Aircrltt

/ V

\

3-Ligtit Ptienon.

>

(•Buds

S:

5-Cloud*. Dust, etc Hnsuflic. kilo.

,

\A N

^

7-Psrdnloral

t-IMnom

i

V i

M

1

Wtoe Total

A/Ay

i

Evaluation

J~UA/£-

/4c/<i Us7~

Percent Number Number Percent Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certam Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total /

0-Balloon •.-Astronomical

0

1

0

/ /

7.7 0.0

0 0

7-7 7-7 71 1.

3 1

7 if4 0.0 fS.if Q.O O.D 0 a 0 o MJ o.o t>.0 OX Co Q\ o CO Q_ 3 33) o.p 23.1 ; 7 7 O.0 77 .0

t-Unknoin

n

0

W}Uier

1

0

n

1

2

!?-Ait«att \

,'3-Ligrit Pfienon.

0

4-Biids ' :

0

S-Clouo\ Dust, etc.

'e-lnsuftic Info.

T\ \

;;-Psvdiolo|ical

Total

Evaluation

Number Certain Doubtfu

0-Balloon

0

1-Astronoraical

1

2-Airaatt 3-Li|M Phenoca. 4-Binh S-Cloods, D m . t i c

•Q

0 0 _0>

—6 0 0 1

0

a 0

Percent Total Certain Doubtfu 0

00

1 7 O.O

0 0

0 0

0

0-1

0

0.0

0.1

0

1

7-Psytholoiical

1

Q

1

t-Unkmnm

2 0

D

J

to: o

0

0

G.j

0

s

) ate

S-lnsuNic Wo.

Wther

Total

S

0

0

H US' 0.0 JP.g 1 7-7 o.O 7 7

0 1 0 0 (, 0 .

g 10

/ 3 W3 77 /to. 3~i

0

£

3

5

ISO 6 5.0 l.S n-i 1 0.9 r.p 5.0 (1 2 0 1 -7.6 5.5 0 0 0 Q-l 0.0 Q.O 0 0 o.o 0.0 o.o (1 2 ^2. c 15.0 Q.O li± 7 1 O.o s.o 5-" 9 tQ.O (0,0 7.0.0 6 0 0 /0 75.0 Q.O 2S.0 0

is.* 0J

o.o

a

7

HO

./7-S /go.

1

0 1 0 0

0

0

0 0-0 0-0 90 3 I&-J 33.1 SO 9 0 0.0 O.O 0-0 0 9-9 o.O 0.0 0 MJ 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0 0 o.o 00 1 IL-1 0.0 2 33.3 ••33.3 0 0.9 C.9 9-0

H

T

0

0-9 0 o.c 1Q.0 1 Iff 00 6 f.0 09 0 9.9 0.0 90 O.Q 0 0 (?•(> 20 0 O.o 190 1 0.0 Hb

O.O

0-O 100

0 2 0 0

0

0 0 0

-0

ui

333

124

loo

Q 1 0

1

f? / 0 0

6

a 0

1

0 0

o

0

0

o

0

0

p

1

p Q (?

0 9 0.0 O-i 33.3 33.3 db.i o.o 0.0 ao W5 OQ 323 00 0.0 0.0 CD

0.0

0 0.0 3

0-0 00 0-0 00

ao {?•(?

-&& 0,0

U-7 33.3 /to.

0

JL 0 0 0 0 (7

0

60 10 0

(1-0

0-b

0

6,0

0

0 0

0 00 7 loo

0

0

0

c

0

0

1

10

ft.fi 19.0 ICO.

Percent Certain Doubtful Total

0.6

0

1 00 J;

0

0

a

o

,o a c

0 0

Q_

0

0

o

0

X

0,0 OB /If) fir to 0.0 st.e

M o.ff 0-0 Ct.o o.o 9-1 t 0

0

0

0.0

70.9 0,0 0./)

0.0

7 0

0.0 HO

CQ.O

0

0

7

'eicml Certain Dojbttul Total

0 •x 0

Number Number P a Cent Nuaber P a Cent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

0-t

O.Q

Number NunibH PeiCent ;ettain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total

()•<!

0-9 CO 0.0

0-t 00 0.0 If 0.0

04

9.1 O.o 0.0

ao

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.1)

Q.0 0.0 0,0 0-0 to 100.0

o.o (1.0

O.DIto.


Afjffc/f

d~AA/L>A/?r E<alatm

Pel Cent Human Pei Cent Nunbei Certan Doubtful ToUl Certan Doubtful ToUl^ ;«tam Doubtful Hfolal Ceitan Doubtful Total

ft- Balloon i-Astnnoancal

0 U

2-Aiiciatt

0

3-Litfit Ptienon.

f? 0 Q

4-Bitib S-Oouds. Dust. etc.

0

c

3 7 0 0 c Q

o

0

o

0

S-IMmow

C

0 $

Mtkc

0

1 u.

Total

VM. 00

(1

J

Co 10.0 00

0 1

0.0 0 0

Unsettle »fe>. 7-Piydalo|ical

00 4Q.0

0.0 0 0 10.0 •70.0

0

00 00

p

0

0V 0.0 pp 0.0 00 loo 0,0 0 0 0.0 0.0 IQ.O (o.O

o [

I,'

1-Aitnnoncal

/

iz-Aircraft

/

0

,3-Li(ht Ptimorn. !

0

•2 I

5-Cloudj, Dust etc

o

C

'frlnuflic Into. i7-Psychoh>(ical S-lMmnei Wdier

'

Total

Evaluation

3 t.

l 0

D 0

o

1

(t

0 0 o

0

2

1-Astjomwical

0 /

I

3-Lifht Pnenoa. 4-Bints 5-Clouds, Dust, etc

0

6-lnsutfic kilo.

Q

7-Pjycholo|ical 8-Unkjtoioi Wthei

Total

0.6

9

Q o Q 0 0 t

o

0

0

1

1 0 0

0 )

0 /

Q

H

c

0

o

o 0

0

o

0

0 p

p

s

2

0

X

0 0

0

0

Q

0

1

o1

0.0

Do

0.0 7-0.0 -iM [ O.O /o.o IJM 0 0.0 0,o 0,0 3 34.0 CO 30P 0.P to (-0 1 '0.0 /f.fi 0 0.0 041 0.0

2 / /

0 0 0 0 0

0

p

X

10

0

2

0.0 to 19.0 /eo-o O.O 0.0 p.o D.0 0.0 co DL f.C o.o 0.0 04 OL o.o 0.0 fi.fi 0.0 0e 0.0 O.O (-.0

60.0 #0.0 '00.

Percent Hunter Total Certain Doubtful Total Certan Doubtful Total

rp-o

60.1

44.0 100-

Nsaba PerCenl Certain Doubtful Total Certain D o * *

0-BalloM

2-Aiiciaft

0 0.t 1 (0.0 1

i

0

&Q.0

q 0

0 0

2 0 0

i'

0

0 O.g 0.0 0.0 2 W.t, 0J> 2&A 0 61 0-e 94 o 0.0

•2 0 3 0

0 0

I 0 1 0

2

0

o

0

1

2

7

1

0.0 0.0 28lf 0.0

0-6 7J.9

0.0

0.0

QJO 04> 0.0 40

m

m

0 1

20& 0.0 JL0O 00 200 3 Jp.0 .4 0. 3Mo 0.0 0.0 -MH 1 /p.p 0.0 0.0 AO 0 PJO 0.0 /Q.0 \ fO-o 0 0,0 0A t.o 100 1 /O.O 04) JLGL 0.0 0 X

0 0 0

o

0 0 0

1 0

0

1

p-

10

ro.o

MO

/«0.

JlJA/AT

PaCent Nunbei Certain Doubtful Total Certain Ooubtlu

O-Balloon

0.0

s

g_

y Evaluation

0

0

6P.0 IfO-O 100.

IQ

1 0

Percent Nuabei Percent Number Certan Doubtful Total Certain DouMtuI Total Certain Doubttul ToUl Certain DMMM Total

e.o

e 0 0 0 2

\

p p

Ml

3

66.7

•16.7

100.

? 3 H

3

J3.3 J 3 5

u

33.3

Q

0.0 0-0 J> 6.0 0 0.0 0 do 0 JA

0.0 Ci.l Q.O 0.0 oo 0J> 33.3 31.1

O.Q 0.0

0.0

0,9

00 Q-0 0-0 0.0

0.0

0

n

C 0 0

0 0

0 1

0

i 0 0

a.o 1

/

fi.o

7

0.0

0.0 Zo.o 0 f.D •2 10.0 0 o.o

5.0

0-0 SO /p.o Q-0 P.P 200 0.0 O.O 0 0 0.0 3S.0 /OP;

125

1

1

23

if.

7

2 0

6

UJ

U-7 S.I 0fi

f 9

1

H.X 0.0 O.O

P

I

0 0

0 s

0 0

llcl

O.O

0.0 70.2

0 I $

6L.1

Hunbei ;ert»in Doubtfu

IS.Q 30.0 100

Naabtr Percent Per Cent Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubtful Total Certain Doubttul Total

0 0

/c

/S.O S.O

s.o o 1 s.o 1 % s.o

X

C\0 flrP

Noaber Per Cant Total Certain Doabtful ToUl Certain Doubtful Total

/ 0S> _/£7i /(•? p.o /(•? j 0J> 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 1 0 00 J.D 0.0 (.0 0.0 A. 7 0.0 /t.7 0 t-0 0.0 O-O 2 O.QLLL1

0

o 0 o

0 0

un 0.0

MMOer :erbin Douctti

S.I

9

0

H Hi

Q 0 0

41.1

0

0.0

0

0,0 O.O

o

0

0 \ 0

U.I 0.0

0\0 0.0

1 0 tf-Z 00

0 p

CD

1

o,o

0

0./) 00 •lfi.2

311 100.

i

0

fi.O

0 0

Z 0 o

0

0

0

%\s

0

0.0

0

0.0 o CO ?

0

0

Q

0.0 0.0

1

0 1 L±

0.0

S.f

2

n

n.i

lot.

Q

0

0.0

0 0

f

1 1

JE1 c

r.? &o 1.9

H

0

0.0 0.0

UL 3

a. I

0

11$ 17. t ? J-f Itf. 1 a

Z

7

Percent Mwber ToUl Certain DoaMU Total Certain Doubt*.

2 /

0

US' 9 J2a 2.

0 if

I

o o o Q 0

0

A" 2-0.0 /O.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 /o,o

04 0.0

1 0

ZOJ>

Z0.P

20.0

/O.O 3-0.0 O.Q P.O 0,0 0.0 0-0 0.0 J&o. AO 0.0 O.O 0.0 10.0 I"P

SP.P

PerCait Total Certain Doabrkil ToU

'•i 10-5 o.o/ASC /IS 7I.-I 3/. 6 1 0.0 S3 S.3 0.0 O oo o 0.6 66 0.0 0 0.0 /f.S 0.0 /f.8 0 0.0 /?-P 0,0

-r

0

it.i

r ff

pi

0.0 /OS

Ml

/it.


mmmmmmmm

TflJi £•

/•£/

^f

PMtr 1/rtT

//!/& i