Wright-Patterson, 1955: o Relatório Especial 14 do Projeto Blue Book examina cerca de 4.000 relatos e conclui ser muito improvável uma tecnologia desconhecida

FORM 2250 6-64. Approved for Release 2026 Under Section 1842 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. (PLACE FORM 490 HERE). OFFICIAL RECORD COPY. [handwritten annotations, partly illegible: a reviewer's note dated 11/21/84(?) and "315 pages"]. 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.

PROJECT BLUE BOOK. SPECIAL REPORT NO. 14 (ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS). PROJECT NO. 10073. 5 MAY 1955. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (AFR 190-16). AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO. Copy No. 35. [handwritten: "ASD/A file", "280" and other marks, partly illegible]

PROJECT BLUE BOOK. SPECIAL REPORT NO. 14 (ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS). PROJECT NO. 10073. 5 MAY 1955. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (AFR 190-16). AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO. No copyright material is contained in this publication.

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 reports of unidentified aerial objects should be investigated and evaluated to determine 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 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 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 (1) 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 observations 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 and 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 represented observations of technological developments not known to this country necessitated 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 information 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

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 1 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 information and those where the phenomena could not be explained. This trend had been anticipated in the light of improved reporting and investigating procedures. Official reports on hand at the end of 1954 totaled 4834. Of these, 425 were produced in 1953 and 429 in 1954. These 1953 and 1954 individual 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 - 16% Aircraft - 20% Astronomical - 25% Other - 13% Insufficient Info - 17% Unknown - 9% As the study of the current cases progressed, it became increasingly 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 established 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 resulted, since 1 January 1955, in reducing the insufficient information cases to 7% and the unknown cases to 3%, of the totals. The period 1 January 1955 to 5 May 1955 accounted for 131 unidentified aerial object reports received. Evaluation percentages of these are as follows:

Balloons - 26% Aircraft - 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 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 has been a complete lack of any valid evidence of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.

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 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"(1). 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 'captured' by an explanation which puts an end to its existence as a 'flying saucer'"(1). 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, psychological phenomena, 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'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.

a significant number of fairly complete reports by reliable observers remained 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 preliminary 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 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 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

records include condensations of all individual sighting reports, and the IBM cards used in various phases of the study. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DATA Reports of sightings were received by the U. S. Air Force from a representative cross section 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 selected 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

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 and arranged, the data as a whole 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 KNOWNS most of the reports of objects classified as UNKNOWNS. An intensive study, aimed at finding a verified example of a "flying saucer" or at deriving a verified model or models of "flying saucers" (as defined on Page 1), led to the conclusion that neither goal could be attained using the 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.