CIA UAP 015 Project Blue Book Special Report No 14

FORM 2250 Approved fo..r: Release 2026 Under Section 1842 of the National Defen~5.e ,..,_ 1 Authorizati6n Ac-e' for Fiscal Year 2024 6 64 • 5'f.J _: ~- _,.,/ ~ 1 ----~.~ ..:_:._~,. / _.,-<,y-; ~ -- --<-4H~ (PLACE FORM qgo HERE) 0 FFI C/IAL RECORD J The, Agenc. in accc. additior, Records .,.---------- RETURN IMMEDIATELY AFTER USE TO THE CIA ARCHIVES AND RECORDS CENTER FORM 2250 6-64 (PLACE FORM ~90 HERE} OFFICIALJ RECORD COPY WARNING The attached document (s) must be safeguarded. It is the Agency's Official Historical Record and must be preserved in accordance with the Federal Records Act of 1950. For additional information, call the Chief, CIA Archives and Records Center, extension 2468. RETURN IMMEDIATELY AFTER USE TO THE CIA ARCHIVES AND RECORDS CENTER . . . r ..~.. ,=,. _._,_- . .- _ . , " _ : . - - - _J: -~ , , , , : ~ ·, ~ , -,_1: ... - ••,;-.,-·, C / ·~f·;•";,_,, ;: ~;..::;s.-..:.--:;_1-:,:,,•-'l(<..., - -... ~ · -....... --..._,,,!,.,,,,.,._ ~- 'PROJECT BLLI ' B • I ~~lt!L ·•21u,c< f·;•";,_,, ;: ~;..::;s.-..:.--:;_1-:,:,,•-'l(<..., - -... ~ · -....... --..._,,,!,.,,,,.,._ ~- 'PROJECT BLLI ' B • I ~~lt!L ·•21u,c< ,.,.. # / ) j .."""- 1 · , • ti?0 d ' " ; SJ ,._;· C'.'.:'.: ?'e·--·('· ·~,-- ~ - ,1/i ' \ , -:/). I -~ I 1---7 '/~ I I SPECIAL REPORT N0.14 (ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OB1ECTS) PROJECT NO. 10073 5 MAY 1955 \ AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE OHIO Copy No. 35 --=---- I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I I , , l PROJECT BLUE BOOK SPECIAL REPORT NO. 14 (ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS) PROJECT NO. 10073 5 MAY 1955 FOR OffIC!Al USt ONlY (AFR 190-16) AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE GENTER WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE o:mo No copyright materiel ls contained In this publication, ' \I ii il1 I I I I :1 I 1 11 ! ii I :I !1I I I I _I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I 1 11 ! ii I :I !1I I I I _I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY. INTRODUCTION ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DATA REDUCTION OF DATA TO MECHANIZED COMPUTATION FORM Questionnaire . Coding System and Work Sheet Identification of Working Papers. Evaluation of Individual Reports ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. 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. TABULATION OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS BY CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX B. WORKING PAPER FORMS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure l Frequency of Sightings by Year for Object, Unit, and All Sightings Figure 2 Distribution of Evaluations of Object, Unit, and All Sightings for All Years Figure 3 Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for All Years With Comparisons of Each Year for Each Evaluation Group • Figure 4 Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for All Years and Each Year Figure 5 Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation Within Months for All Years Figure 6 Distribution of Object Sightings by Certain and Doubtful Evaluations for All Years and Each Year • Figure 7 Frequency of Object Sightings and Unknown Object Evaluations by Months, 1947-1952. Figure 8 Distribution of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups With Evaluation Distributions for Each Group Evaluations for All Years and Each Year • Figure 7 Frequency of Object Sightings and Unknown Object Evaluations by Months, 1947-1952. Figure 8 Distribution of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups With Evaluation Distributions for Each Group . Figure 9 Distribution of Object Sightings Among the Four Sighting Reliability Groups for All Years and Each Year . Figure 10 Distribution of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, Segregated by Military and Civilian Observers, With Evaluation Distribution for Each Segregation Figure 11 Distribution of Object Sightings by Reported Colors of Object(s) With Evaluation Distribution for Each Color Group • 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 . iii vii 3 4 4 6 7 10 14 14 16 16 16 60 76 94 95 255 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure 14 Distribution of Object Sightings by Months Among the Eight Duration Groups for All Years Figure 15 Distribution of Object Sightings by Shape of Object(s) Reported With Evaluation Distribution for Each Shape Group , Figure 16 Distribution of Object Sightings by Reported Speed of Object(s) With Evaluation Distribution for Each Speed Group . Figure 17 Distribution of All Sightings by Observer Location for All Years and Each Year Figure 18 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Color, 1947-1952 Figure 19 Comparison of Known and Evaluation Distribution for Each Speed Group . Figure 17 Distribution of All Sightings by Observer Location for All Years and Each Year Figure 18 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Color, 1947-1952 Figure 19 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Number of Objects per Sighting, 1947-1952 Figure 20 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Speed, 1947-1952 Figure 21 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Duration, 1947-1952 Figure 22 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Shape, 1947-1952 Figure 23 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Light Brightness, 1947-1952 Figure 24 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Astronomical Versus Total Object Sightings Less Astronomical. Figure 25 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Aircraft Versus Total Object Sightings Less Aircraft Figure 26 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Balloon Versus Total Object Sightings Less Balloon, Figure 27 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Insufficient Information Versus Total Object Sightings Less Insufficient Information Figure 28 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Other Versus Total Object Sightings Less Other Figure 29 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Unknown Versus Total Object Sightings Less Unknown Figure 30 Characteristics Profiles of Object Sightings by Total Sample, Known Evaluations, and Individual Known Evaluations, With Unknown Evaluations Superimposed , Figure 31 Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Unknown Versus Total Object Sightings Less Unknown 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., 1947-1952, by Subdivisions of One Degree of Latitude and Longitude Figure 32 Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for the Twelve Regional Areas of the U. S., With the Strategic Areas Located Figure 33 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central East Region Figure 34 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Midwest Region Figure 35 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the Central Farwest Region Figure 36 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Midwest Region . Figure 37 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South West Region iv Page 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 I I I I I I I I I I I I I , - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure 38 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure 38 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the South Farwest Region . Figure 39 Diagram of a Celestial Sphere. Figure 40 Frequency of Object Sightings by Angle of Elevation of the Sun, Intervals of 10 Degrees of Angle. Figure 41 Frequency of Object Sightings by Local Sun Time, Intervals of One Hour Table Object Sightings Table II Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Color Table III Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Number Table IV Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Shape Table V Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Duration of Observation Table VI Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Speed Table VII Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Light Brightness Table VIII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Color Table IX Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Number. Table X Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Shape Table XI Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Duration of Ob~ervation Table XII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Speed Table XIII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Basis of Shape Table XI Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Duration of Ob~ervation Table XII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Speed Table XIII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Light Brightness. 54 56 57 59 60 62 63 64 65 ti6 67 70 71 72 73 74 75 v and vi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I SUMMARY Reports of unidentified aerial objects (popularly termed "flying saucers" or "flying discs") have been received by the U.S. Air Force since mid-1947 from' many and diverse sources. Although there was no evidence that the ·unexplained reports of unidentified objects constituted a threat to the security of the U.S., the Air Force determined that all rep,orts of unidentified aerial objects should be fovestigated and evaluated to d,etermine if "flying saucers". represented technological developments not known to this country. In order to discover any pertinent trend or pattern inherent in the data, and to evaluate or explain any trend or pattern found, appropriate methods of reducing these data from reports of unidentified aerial objects In general, the to a form amenable to scientific' appraisal were employed. 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 general, the to a form amenable to scientific' appraisal were employed. 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 bf study. The reports received by the U.S. Air Force on unidentified aerial objects were reduced to IBM punched-card abstracts of the data by means of logically developed forms and standardized evaluation procedures. Evaluation of sighting reports, a crucial step in the preparation of the data for statistical treatment, consisted of an appraisal of the reports and· the subsequent categorization of the object or objects described in each report. A detailed description of this phase of the study stresses the careful attempt to maintain complete objectivity and consistency. Analysis of the refined and evaluated data derived from the original reports of sightings consisted of (I) a systematic attempt to ferret out any distinguishing characteristics _inherent in the data of any of their segments, (2) a concentrated study of any trend or pattern found, and (3) an attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observa.:. tions of technological' developments not known to this country. The first step in the 'analysis of the data revealed the existence of certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified .i.nd those not identified. Statistical methods of testing when applied indicated a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant. An attempt to The first step in the 'analysis of the data revealed the existence of certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified .i.nd those not identified. Statistical methods of testing when applied indicated a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant. An attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represeri'ted observations of technological developments not known to this country necessi­ tated a thorough re-examination and re-evaluation of the cases of objects not originally identified; this led to the conclusion that this probability was very small. The special study which resulted in this report (Analysis of Reports of Unidentified Aerial Objects, 5 May 1955) started in 1953. To provide the study group with a complete set of files, the informatio~ cut-off date was established as of the end of 1952. It will accordingly be noted that the statistics contained in all charts and tables in this report are terminated vii with the year 1952. In these charts, 3201 cases have been used. As the study progressed, a constant program was maintained for the purpose of making comparisons between the current cases received after I January 1953, and those being used for the report. This was done in order that any change or significant trend which might arise from current developments could be incorporated in the summary of this report. The 1953 and 1954 cases show a general and expected trend of increasing percentages in the finally identified categories. They also.show decreasing percentages in categories where there was insufficient informa­ tion and those where the phenomena this report. The 1953 and 1954 cases show a general and expected trend of increasing percentages in the finally identified categories. They also.show decreasing percentages in categories where there was insufficient informa­ tion and those where the phenomena could not be explained. This trend had been:. anticipated in the light of improved reporting and investigating pro­ ceduJ;"es. Official reports on hand at the end of 1954 totaled 4834. Of these, 425 were produced in 1953 and 429 in 195'!. These 1953 and 1954 indi­ vidual reports (a total of 854), were evaluated on the same basis as were those received before the end of 1952. The results are as follows: Balloons Aircraft - 16% - 20% Astronomical - 25% Other - 13% Insufficient Info 1 7% - 9% As the study of the current cases progressed, it became increasingly Unknown obvious that if reporting and investigating procedures could be further improved, the percentages of those cases which contained insufficient information and those remaining unexplained would be greatly reduced. The key to a higher percentage of solutions appeared to be in rapid "on the spot" investigations by trained personnel. On the basis of this, a revised program was estab- lished by AF Reg. 200-2 Subject: "Unidentified Flying Objects Reporting" (Short Title: UFOB) dated 12 August 1954. This new program, which had begun to show marked results before January 1955, provided primarily that the estab- lished by AF Reg. 200-2 Subject: "Unidentified Flying Objects Reporting" (Short Title: UFOB) dated 12 August 1954. This new program, which had begun to show marked results before January 1955, provided primarily that the 4602d Air Intelligence Service' Squadron (Air Defense Command) would carry out all field investigations. This squadron has sufficient units and is so deployed as to be able to arrive "on the spot" within a very short time after a report is received. After treatment by the 4602d AISS, all information is supplied to the Air Technical Intelligence Center for final evaluation. This cooperative program has re­ sulted, since 1 January 1955, in reducing the insufficient information cases to 7o/o and the unknown cases to 3%, of the totals. The period l January 1955 to 5 May 1955 accounted for 131 unidentified aerial object reports received. Evaluation percentages of these are as follows: viii I I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I I I fi r· ..... ,, I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' f [1 Balloons Aircraft - 26% - 21% Astronomical - 23% Other 20% Insufficient Info - 7% Unknown - 3% All available data were included in this study which was prepared by a panel of ' ' f [1 Balloons Aircraft - 26% - 21% Astronomical - 23% Other 20% Insufficient Info - 7% Unknown - 3% All available data were included in this study which was prepared by a panel of scientists both in and out of the Air Force. On the basis of this study it is believed that all the unidentified aerial objects could have been explained if more complete observational data had been available. Insofar as the reported aerial objects which still remain unexplained are concerned, there exists little information other than the impressions and interpretations of their observers. As these impressions and interpretations have been replaced by the use of improved methods of investigation and reporting, and ,by scientific analysis, the number of unexplained cases has decreased rapidly towards the vanishing point. Therefore, on the b_asis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge. It is emphasized that there has been a complete lack of any valid evidence of physical 'matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object. ix I I I I I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I J 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. Result­ ing newspaper publicity of this incident caught the 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. Result­ ing 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 defini­ tions have been offered, one of the best being that originated by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, 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. Hynek' 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 11 elaborating on his definition, says, "Each flying saucer, so defined, has associated with it a probable lifetime. It wanders in the field of public in­ spection like an electron in a field of ions, until I captured' by an explana­ tion which puts an end to its existence as a I flying saucer' 11 ( 1). ( field of public in­ spection like an electron in a field of ions, until I captured' by an explana­ tion which puts an end to its existence as a I flying saucer' 11 ( 1). ( 1). Dr. Hynek, This definition would be applicable to any and all of the sightings which remained unidentified throughout this study. However, the term "flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily ex­ plainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World. This would include such items as natural phenomena that are not yet completely understood, psychological phenomena, or intruder air­ craft of a type that may be possessed by some source in large 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 stimu­ lated by several articles on the subject in leading popular magazines. Early in 1952, the Air Force's cumulative study and analysis of reported sightings indicated that the majority of reports could be accounted for as peak, possibly stimu­ lated by several articles on the subject in leading popular magazines. Early in 1952, the Air Force's cumulative study and analysis of reported sightings indicated that the majority of reports could be accounted for as misinterpretations of known objects ( such as 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 re­ mained unexplained. Although no evidence existed that unexplained reports of sightings constituted_ a 1>hysical 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 sub­ mitted for analysis and evaluation more than tripled, the result of the un­ precedented increase in observations during 1952. Accordingly, this study is based on During the course of the work, the number of reports sub­ mitted for analysis and evaluation more than tripled, the result of the un­ precedented increase in observations during 1952. Accordingly, this study is based on a number of reports considered to be large enough for a pre­ liminary statistical analysis, approximately 4, 000 reports. This study was undertaken primarily to categorize the available reports of sightings and to determine the probability that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects represented observations of "flying saucers". With full cognizance of the quality of the data available for study, yet with an awareness of the proportions this subject has assumed at times in the public mind, this work was undertaken with all the seriousness accorded to a straightforward scientific investigation. In order to establish the probability that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects represented observations of "flying saucers", it was necessary to make an attempt to answer the question "What is a 'flying saucer'?". However, it must be emphasized that this was only incidental to the primary purpose of the study, the determination of the probability that any of the reports of un­ identified aerial objects represented observations of "flying saucers", as defined on Page 1. The basic technique for this study consisted of reducing the available data to a form suitable for mechanical manipulation, a prerequisite for the application of preliminary statistical 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 suit­ able for transfer to IBM punched cards was extremely difficult and time consuming. For this study a panel of consultants was formed, consisting of both experts within and outside A TIC. During the course of the work, guidance and advice were received from the panel. The professional experience available from the panel covered major scientific fields and numerous specialized fields. All records and working papers of this study have been carefully preserved in an orderly fashion suitable for ready reference. These 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I records include condensations of all individual sighting reports, and the IBM cards used in various phases of the study. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DA TA Reports of sightings were received by the U. S. Air Force from a Included were reports from reputable representative cross section of the and the IBM cards used in various phases of the study. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DA TA Reports of sightings were received by the U. S. Air Force from a Included were reports from reputable representative cross section of the population of the U. S., and varied widely in completeness and quality. scientists, housewives, farmers, students, and technically trained mem­ bers of the Armed Forces. Reports varied in length from a few sentences stating that a "flying saucer" had been sighted, to those containing thou­ sands of words, including description, speculation, and advice on how to handle the "problem of the I flying saucers 1 " . 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 A TIC through regular militar