*****

Many individuals, associations, clubs and groups claim to investigate UFO reports. Some solicit reports from the general public. Comparatively few actually participate in any kind of information sharing or data gathering for scientific programs. Some are primarily interest groups based in museums, planetariums, church basements or individuals’ homes, and do essentially nothing with the sighting reports they receive. A few organizations, such as the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) solicit reports and dispatch regional investigators to interview witnesses about their experiences.

Some websites seeming to be major UFO research groups actually do little more than publish witnesses’ accounts without thorough investigation or even referring witnesses to investigators or researchers in their area. While witnesses may be applauded for their courage in giving details of their UFO sighting to a webmaster, without proper investigation their report may be of relatively little use to serious UFO researchers.

Because there is no way to enforce standards in UFO report investigations, the quality of case investigations varies considerably between groups and across provinces. Quantitative studies are difficult because subjective evaluations and differences in investigative techniques do not allow precise comparisons. Ufology Research’s requests for data from Canadian UFO researchers and investigators, and our transcribing of information from others’ websites, unfortunately allow input of only basic information for analyses.

Most Internet postings of UFO report information are woefully incomplete and do not show any actual case investigation results, often forcing an evaluation of “Insufficient Information.” This certainly causes skewing of data and the loss of what may be excellent cases for examination. However, the limitations of in-person or onsite investigation will always be a problem in UFO research. Case data which can be obtained from such sites usually includes things such as date of the sighting, the time, duration, number of witnesses and their location—facts which are not subjective and can be used in scientific studies before interpretation.

For the purposes of this and other scientific studies of UFO data, UFO sightings that have been made to groups, associations, organizations, websites or individuals are considered as data in this study. This may be at odds with some definitions of the term UFO, which is often considered a synonym for “flying saucer” or “alien spacecraft.” The dictionary definition of UFO is simply an aerial object that is not identified by the observer. Some scientific definitions add the additional qualifier that a UFO also is unexplained even after rigorous investigation by trained researchers. This is not how the term is used in common discourse, nor is it so on any website devoted to the collection of UFO reports. Therefore, it should be stated at the outset that the analyses given here are regarding UFO reports, not necessarily UFOs themselves.

The collection of Canadian UFO data is challenging. However, the data obtained for analysis yields results that can be compared with other studies. This is useful in understanding the nature of UFO reports not only in Canada, but can shed light on the nature of UFO reports elsewhere in the world.

UFO Reports in Canada

The following table shows the number of reported UFOs per year since 1989, collected by Ufology Research.

Year	Number	Average
1989	141	141.0
1990	194	167.5
1991	165	166.7
1992	223	180.8
1993	489	242.4
1994	189	233.5
1995	183	226.3
1996	258	230.3
1997	284	236.2
1998	194	232.0
1999	259	234.5
2000	263	236.8
2001	374	247.4
2002	483	264.2
2003	673	291.5
2004	882	328.4
2005	769	354.3
2006	738	375.8
2007	794	399.8
2008	1004	430.0
2009*
2010	968	438.2
2011	986	461.9
Total	10625

In 2011, Ontario had about 41 per cent of the total number of UFO sightings reported in Canada, the most reports of any province. British Columbia was second, with about 22 per cent of the total. Overall, Ontario cases represent almost 30 per cent of all Canadian reports in the Ufology Research database, only slightly more than BC’s 29 per cent. If UFO reporting was simply a factor of population, one would expect percentages of 37 per cent for Ontario and 13 per cent for BC. Quebec should therefore have 23 per cent of all cases, but overall this percentage is only about nine per cent. In 2011, the number of UFO reports in Ontario was the highest on record, with a few provinces having second- or third-highest levels.

TABLE 1

Distribution of UFO Reports by Province

	NT	NU	YT	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	PQ	NB	NS	PI	NF
1989	1	0	0	15	16	18	22	34	28	1	3	0	3
1990	2	0	1	76	9	10	20	21	36	7	5	3	4
1991	0	0	1	59	22	7	6	30	16	9	7	1	4
1992	1	0	3	90	8	9	23	56	10	9	3	0	4
1993	5	0	0	157	56	93	74	51	32	3	3	1	7
1994	3	0	3	14	39	8	10	51	34	6	9	0	6
1995	4	0	0	45	10	11	48	41	20	0	1	0	1
1996	35	0	0	43	10	11	39	63	45	1	9	0	1
1997	22	0	8	99	11	5	32	72	24	1	6	1	3
1998	2	0	22	58	6	14	15	59	15	1	0	1	0
1999	0	0	20	118	19	1	6	79	8	1	0	1	6
2000	0	0	26	102	17	8	19	53	22	0	15	0	0
2001	1	5	18	123	40	12	20	87	34	5	21	2	6
2002	0	2	20	176	51	6	36	128	34	4	23	0	3
2003	2	1	16	304	76	19	25	150	49	4	21	2	4
2004	3	1	2	247	99	45	112	254	64	21	23	2	9
2005	1	0	3	209	90	77	43	214	77	15	16	4	12
2006	2	8	1	209	55	98	54	188	76	12	25	1	5
2007	6	0	7	192	66	36	44	329	93	24	31	2	6
2008	0	1	6	272	157	41	52	334	62	28	34	2	10
2009*
2010	0	0	3	204	85	30	88	405	71	25	42	5	9
2011	2	1	3	216	101	31	81	406	77	27	31	2	5
	NT	NU	YT	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	PQ	NB	NS	PI	NF
Total	91	19	163	3073	1044	575	886	3126	941	205	328	30	109

In addition, geographical names of UFO sighting locations were examined for trends. Many cities were found to have multiple reports, and these are noted in the following table. Large metropolitan areas include their suburbs.

Canadian Cities With Most UFO Reports in 2011

Rank	City	Province	Number of Reports
1	Toronto	ON	34
2	Calgary	AB	26
3	Kelowna	BC	19
4	Winnipeg	MB	18
5	Vancouver	BC	17

Metropolitan Areas
Vancouver	(Incl.New Westminister, W. Van., N. Van., Burnaby, Surrey, Abbottsford, Port Coquitlam, Langley, N.Surrey, N.Langley, Richmond, Delta, N. Delta, Coquitlam, Port Moody)		44
Toronto	(Incl. Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, Oshawa, Whitby, Ajax, Pickering, Etobicoke, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Markham, Oakville)		107

Monthly Trends in UFO Reports

Monthly breakdowns of reports during each year tend to show slightly different patterns.. UFO reports are generally thought to peak in summer and are at minimum in winter, presumably due to the more pleasant observing conditions during the summer months, when more witnesses are outside. In Canada in 2011, July and August numbers were again high, but report numbers were unusually high in fall and winter as well.

	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
1989	13	9	6	9	5	9	5	5	12	32	27	9
1990	17	7	6	47	10	10	9	47	15	16	10	0
1991	13	7	17	12	7	12	16	25	16	12	11	17
1992	15	16	27	16	22	16	23	19	11	16	21	21
1993	59	15	20	22	14	38	27	49	41	152	24	21
1994	16	12	15	21	15	37	19	8	15	10	7	13
1995	14	12	13	9	9	10	28	33	28	11	11	5
1996	37	18	20	16	8	20	30	32	10	22	30	11
1997	19	11	31	29	17	13	29	29	22	16	26	37
1998	3	4	8	5	9	13	16	40	45	35	7	4
1999	8	20	22	7	31	10	27	36	30	29	30	7
2000	21	17	15	21	12	11	19	46	20	44	15	19
2001	36	19	33	25	17	26	51	81	25	17	27	16
2002	31	54	41	28	36	44	73	74	42	26	19	14
2003	41	46	46	46	31	30	131	102	46	64	43	47
2004	59	53	72	68	82	97	96	113	83	46	56	53
2005	36	59	81	59	45	50	96	123	70	56	47	45
2006	33	43	41	66	65	108	113	113	61	36	20	29
2007	45	35	95	76	56	90	80	105	94	64	50	41
2008	64	65	66	58	81	71	148	128	114	82	94	33
2009
2010	40	30	34	38	64	78	196	115	94	106	82	86
2011	94	64	67	63	76	69	102	142	97	91	48	72
	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
Totals	726	623	776	746	713	873	1346	1468	997	977	710	608

UFO Report Types

An analysis by report type shows a similar breakdown to that found in previous years. The percentage of cases of a particular type remains roughly constant from year to year, with some variations. Proportionally, Daylight Discs were unusually low in 2011, with the lion’s share of cases being Nocturnal Lights.

Less than two per cent of all reported UFO cases in 2011 were Close Encounters, emphasizing the reality that very, very few UFO cases involve anything other than distant objects seen in the sky. This is an important statistic, because the current popular interest in abductions and sensational UFO encounters is based not on the vast majority of UFO cases but on the very tiny fraction of cases which fall into the category of close encounters. Speculation on what aliens may or may not be doing in our airspace seems almost completely unconnected to what are actually being reported as UFOs.

TABLE 3

Report Types (Modified Hynek Classifications)

	NL	ND	DD	C1	C2	C3	C4	EV	RD	PH
1989	84	20	16	10	7	0	2	2	0	0
1990	141	24	15	2	1	0	4	3	0	0
1991	110	26	13	7	4	1	2	0	1	1
1992	136	44	20	15	5	2	3	0	0	1
1993	372	77	26	8	2	1	1	1	0	0
1994/95	234	78	28	21	1	1	5	1	0	0
1996	170	40	27	8	3	4	1	2	0	0
1997	145	62	52	4	2	5	8	4	0	1
1998	115	23	25	6	1	0	0	19	0	3
1999	163	44	37	3	7	1	0	0	0	0
2000	179	31	26	4	2	2	0	0	0	3
2001	218	80	55	8	1	3	3	0	0	0
2002	293	94	76	8	5	0	1	0	0	2
2003	431	152	74	5	5	3	2	0	0	0
2004	520	203	136	7	6	2	3	0	0	3
2005	424	169	149	9	5	3	2	0	0	1
2006	508	65	85	12	1	4	1	0	0	21
2007	413	244	153	12	7	4	1	0	0	*
2008	442	353	175	10	7	2	0	0	0	8
2009*
2010	467	324	132	14	9	0	4	5	0	13
2011	559	313	92	15	4	1	0	0	0	1
	NL	ND	DD	C1	C2	C3	C4	EV	RD	PH
Totals	6098	2538	1440	189	82	44	42	66	1	60

For those unfamiliar with the classifications, a summary follows:

NL (Nocturnal Light) - light source in night sky

ND (Nocturnal Disc) - light source in night sky that appears to have a definite shape

DD (Daylight Disc) - unknown object observed during daytime hours

C1 (Close Encounter of the First Kind) - ND or DD occurring within 200 metres of a witness

C2 (Close Encounter of the Second Kind) - C1 where physical effects left or noted

C3 (Close Encounter of the Third Kind) - C1 where figures/entities are encountered

C4 (Close Encounter of the Fourth Kind) - an alleged "abduction" or "contact" experience

Note: The category of Nocturnal Disc was created in the 1980s by UFOROM originally for differentiation of cases within its own report files, and has been adopted by many other groups worldwide.

The category of PH indicates the sighting was entirely photographic, without any actual object seen visually. Many reports listed as NL or ND or DD may also have associated photos or video, so this should not be considered exclusive. EV indicates a case in which physical evidence was observed (not necessarily related to any observed object) and RD is a case in which an object was detected with radar but not necessarily observed.

Hourly Distribution

The hourly distribution of cases has usually followed a similar pattern every year, with a peak at 2200 or 2300 hours local and a trough around 0900 hours local. Since most UFOs are nocturnal lights, most sightings will occur during the evening hours. Since the number of possible observers drops off sharply near midnight, we would expect the hourly rate of UFO reports would vary with two factors: potential observers and darkness.

There was one anomaly in the hourly statistics: there were fewer daylight cases in 2011, consistent with the low number of reported DD cases that year.

Time	2010	2011
12:00-12:59	8	7
13:00-13:59	12	9
14:00-14:59	7	8
15:00-15:59	13	7
16:00-16:59	15	7
17:00-17:59	24	19
18:00-18:59	33	26
19:00-19:59	54	63
20:00-20:59	78	96
21:00-21:59	107	114
22:00-22:59	140	148
23:00-23:59	132	109
00:00-00:59	53	50
01:00-01:59	48	38
02:00-02:59	30	27
03:00-03:59	22	19
04:00-04:59	11	14
05:00-05:59	7	15
06:00-06:59	17	18
07:00-07:59	7	6
08:00-08:59	5	1
09:00-09:59	5	1
10:00-10:59	7	2
11:00-11:59	12	3

Duration

The category of Duration is interesting in that it represents the subjective length of time the UFO experience lasted. In other words, this is the length of time the sighting lasted as estimated by the witness. Naturally, these times are greatly suspect because it is known that most people tend to badly misjudge the flow of time. Although an estimate of "one hour" may be in error by several minutes, it is unlikely that the true duration would be, for example, one minute. Furthermore, there have been cases when a UFO was observed and clocked very accurately, so that we can be reasonably certain that UFO events can last considerable periods of time.

The average duration of UFO sightings in Canada in 2011 was found to be about 22 minutes, up from 16 minutes in 2010. Both values are significant lengths of time, and suggest some simple explanations. Previous analyses have shown that long-duration sightings tend to occur in the early morning hours, from about midnight until 6:00 a.m.

The duration of a sighting is one of the biggest clues to its explanation. Experience in studying UFO reports has shown us that short duration events are usually fireballs or bolides, and long duration events of an hour or more are very probably astronomical objects moving slowly with Earth’s rotation.

Duration (in seconds)	2010	2011

1 to 5	52	51
6 to 10	34	20
11 to 20	23	16
21 to 60	58	51
61 to 120	53	53
121 to 180	35	33
181 to 300	52	63
301 to 600	34	34
601 to 1800	60	68
1801 to 3600	29	21
> 3600	50	25
Average	1344	971

Colour

In cases where colours of an object were reported by witnesses, the most common colour in 2010 was white, while in 2011 it was orange. The next most common colours in those years were reversed, with orange in 2010 and white in 2011. Since most UFOs are nocturnal starlike objects, the abundance of white objects is not surprising. Colours such as red, orange, blue and green often are associated with bolides (fireballs). Orange is most often associated with the observation of a Chinese lanterns, the launching of which became popular during the past few years. The ‘multicoloured’ designation is problematic in that it literally covers a wide range of possibilities. This label has been used, for example, when witnesses described their UFOs as having white, red and green lights. Many of these are certainly stars or planets, which flash a variety of colours when seen low on the horizon. Aircraft also frequently are described as having more than one colour of light, such as flashing coloured wing lights. However, seen from a distance, aircraft will often be visible only as moving white lights.

Colour	2010	2011

White	162	164
Multicoloured	95	82
Orange	158	219
Yellow	26	41
Red	77	103
Green	32	21
Silver	21	14
Black	26	24
Blue	30	16
Gray	8	7
Brown	0	1
Pink	2	3
Purple	1	1

Witnesses

The average number of witnesses per case between 1989 and 2008 is approximately 2.00. This value has fluctuated between a high of 2.4 in 1996 to as low as 1.4 in 1990. In 2010, the average number of witnesses per case was quite high, at 1.91, while the 2011 value was down to 1.74.

This indicates that the typical UFO experience has more than one witness, and supports the contention that UFO sightings represent observations of real, physical phenomena, since there is usually at least one corroborator present to support the sighting.

Number of Witnesses per Case in 2010

# Witnesses	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	>10
Number	507	283	84	34	21	9	5	3	1	3	7

Average: 1.91
Total # of witnesses in cases where exact # of witnesses known: 1,824

Number of Witnesses per Case in 2011

# Witnesses	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	>10
Number	562	279	68	37	9	8	2	5	1	3	3

Average: 1.74
Total # of witnesses in cases where exact # of witnesses known: 1,702

Shape

Witnesses’ descriptions of the shapes of UFOs vary greatly. In 2010, about 45 per cent were of “point sources”—that is, “starlike” objects or distant lights. In 2011, this number was significantly greater, at 56 per cent. The classic “flying saucer” or disc-shaped object comprises only around three or four per cent of all UFO reports, contrary to popular opinion.

The shape of a perceived object depends on many factors such as the witness’ own visual acuity, the angle of viewing, the distance of viewing and the witness’ own biases and descriptive abilities. Nevertheless, in combination with other case data such as duration, shape can be a good clue towards a UFO’s possible explanation.

Shape	2010	2011

Ball/Globe/Round/Orb/Sphere	186	144
Fireball	61	61
Boomerang/Crescent/Chevron/V/U	18	7
Cigar/Cylinder	35	43
Disk/Saucer	33	42
Irregular	130	97
Oval/Egg/Elliptical	15	24
Point Source	440	554
Triangle	42	43
Diamond		2
Rectangle	0	3

Strangeness

TABLE 4

Evaluation of Canadian UFO Data

%
	Explained	Insufficient Evidence	Probable	Unexplained
1989	0.00%	52.50%	33.30%	14.20%
1990	0.00%	46.40%	40.20%	13.40%
1991	1.20%	48.50%	41.80%	8.50%
1992	8.00%	37.00%	33.00%	22.00%
1993	31.50%	34.80%	23.50%	10.20%
1994/95	19.10%	33.30%	35.20%	12.40%
1996	9.30%	40.70%	33.70%	16.30%
1997	6.00%	37.30%	43.00%	13.70%
1998	5.10%	38.70%	44.80%	11.30%
1999	3.80%	31.50%	51.90%	12.70%
2000	8.75%	35.74%	42.59%	12.93%
2001	5.88%	34.76%	44.12%	15.24%
2002	2.48%	39.75%	39.75%	18.01%
2003	16.34%	24.67%	42.50%	16.49%
2004	8.62%	22.68%	53.17%	15.53%
2005	12.09%	25.36%	47.85%	14.69%
2006	7.07%	44.84%	36.28%	11.82%
2007	2.03%	32.06%	50.12%	15.78%
2008	2.69%	27.99%	59.46%	9.86%
2009*
2010	1.96%	38.64%	51.34%	8.06%
2011	3.55%	40.67%	44.83%	10.95%

	Explained	Insufficient Evidence	Probable	Unexplained
1989	0	74	47	20
1990	0	90	78	26
1991	2	80	69	14
1992	17	83	74	49
1993	154	170	115	50
1994/95	71	124	131	46
1996	24	105	87	42
1997	17	106	122	39
1998	10	75	87	22
1999	10	82	135	32
2000	23	94	112	34
2001	22	130	165	57
2002	12	192	192	87
2003	110	166	286	111
2004	76	200	469	137
2005	93	195	368	113
2006	52	330	267	87
2007	17	268	419	132
2008	27	281	597	99
2009*
2010	19	374	497	78
2011	35	401	442	108
	791	3620	4759	1383

In 2010, the percentage of Unknowns was just 8.06 per cent, the lowest ever recorded. This rebounded somewhat to almost 11 per cent in 2011. There are several factors that affect this value.

There were 108 Unknowns out of 986 total cases in 2011. If we look only at the Unknowns with a Strangeness of 6 or greater and a Reliability rating of 6 or greater, we are left with only eight high-quality Unknowns in 2011 (less than one per cent of the total). This is much lower than previous studies, where values closer to three or four per cent were noted. As a comparison, USAF Blue Book studies found three to four per cent of their cases were "excellent" Unknowns.

It should be emphasized again that even high-quality Unknowns do not imply alien visitation. Each case may still have an explanation following further investigation. And of those that remain unexplained, they may remain unexplained, but still are not incontrovertible proof of extraterrestrial intervention or some mysterious natural phenomenon.

The interpretation of the 108 Unknowns in 2011 is that these cases were among the most challenging of all the reports received. It should be noted that most UFO cases go unreported, and that there may be ten times as many UFO sightings that go unreported as those which get reported to public, private or military agencies. Furthermore, it should be noted that some cases with lower reliability ratings suffer only from incomplete investigations, and that they may well be more mysterious than those on the list of Unknowns. And, above all, these cases are not proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

The increase in the numbers of UFO reports with time likely does not have a simple explanation. It could be related to a growing awareness within the general population that there are agencies which collect UFO reports. It could be that there really are more UFOs physically present in the sky. It could be that the collection of UFO data is becoming more efficient. It could be that there are more private websites allowing or inviting people to report their UFO sightings. While media have been noted as playing a definite role in UFO waves (a national increase in UFO sightings), media coverage of UFO reports has significantly declined over the past decade while the number of reports has risen. Perhaps a cultural factor is at work as well, where “aliens” and UFOs are now well-entrenched within the societal mindset and are accepted as more probable than fiction. This question by itself is deserving of scientific study.

Discussion

Some people might find the percentage of Unknowns to be lower than expected, while others (notably debunkers) would argue that it is far too high. Other studies of UFO data have found greatly disparate percentages of Unknowns among UFO data. Does the Canadian UFO Survey accurately reflect the characteristics of UFOs?

Recently, Ray Dickenson broached the subject of percentages of Unknowns in the UFO–related discussion list UFO Updates (17 May 2012). He noted:

Subject: Realistic Ratios Of Unexplained Sightings?

To revisit this subject:

When CNES (French National Centre for Space Studies) released its UFO files in 2007 it said that 28% of those reports were unexplained. (http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/)

And today their site says 22% of ongoing reports are 'unidentified'.

In `UFO - Secret Access on the Record' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTPFF-qhqf8)(from about 59 mins), [w]e hear that after the Belgian wave, General Wilfried De Brouwer said that of several thousand reports a total of 650 were investigated and of those, 500 remained unexplained. That's approximately 77%.

Yet the media in UK and USA continually claim that "only 5%" of sightings are unexplained.

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2012/may/m17-010.shtml

Later, he noted:

“…there's several factors to the equation that most folk don't consider.

i) how many reports - of all those available - are investigated;

ii) how scientifically rigorous are the investigations;

iii) how truthful are the people who make those results available to the public.

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2012/may/m20-002.shtml

Canadian ufologist Don Ledger noted:

In my own experience with some 50 odd cases I've looked into over the years the witnesses have been forthcoming with great detail of the "object" and it's behavior. I didn't dismiss a case just because Venus, Saturn or Jupiter was present as did Project BlueBook. In fact in most cases there was no similarity between stars and the description of the object making a planet or star explanation ludicrous. The percentage went more the other way with 60 percent unknown.

http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2007/jun/m17-006.shtml

Why, then, are there disparate percentages of Unknowns according to various experts? Much of the reason has to do with the data samples used. The Ufology Research database includes reports of UFOs from many sources, and includes reports of objects that were reported as UFOs but quickly identified as having explanations by the investigator or agency. Whereas some ufologists would discard these cases as data, Ufology Research believes that because the objects were originally reported as UFOs they must be used as data in any analyses of UFO reports.

It is completely understandable that many ufologists would ignore such cases, as time and effort can be wasted documenting and investigating these reports, while other, more puzzling cases may await follow-up investigations as a result.

One factor that may play a role in skewing the data is that witnesses may be reluctant to report their sightings to an “official” or government or military organization, fearing some kind of reprisal. Indeed, since a recent poll suggested that 79 per cent of Americans believe that their government is keeping information about UFOs from the public. This distrust may play a role in witnesses’ reporting of UFO sightings. (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-26/ufo-survey/55843742/1)

Another reason to include these cases is that historical studies such as those by Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book all included cases which (rightly or wrongly) were classified as stars, birds, aircraft, etc. This means that IFOs were routinely used in studies of UFO data, precisely because they were reported as UFOs.

The answer to the question: “What is the percentage of unexplained cases on file?” is not as simple as it should be. Because every organization and investigator had and has differing criteria for evaluating UFO reports, the percentage of unexplained cases compared with the entire data set will naturally vary, as shown in the following table.

Percentage of Unknowns in UFO Studies’ Databases

Source	Total Cases	Unknowns	%	High-Quality Unknowns
Condon Committee	117	0	0
Blue Book	12,618	701	5.5
Hendry (CUFOS)	1,307	113	8.6	1.5
GEPAN (France)	6,000		13
Ufology Research (Canada)	10,625	1,407	13.2	< 1
NICAP	5,000		16
Blue Book Special Report 14	3,201		22
CNES (France)	730	259	22
AIAA Review of Condon	117		30
Ledger (Canada)	50		60
Brouwer (Belgium)	650	500	77

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs

and others

In some instances, a low percentage of unexplained cases may be due to a bias within an agency or group highly sceptical of UFOs, going to great lengths to explain all reports. This was certainly the case for the Condon Committee, for example. Conversely, one would expect that a pro-UFO group would have a higher ratio of unexplained cases in its files.

However, this is not always the case, because the previously-mentioned selectivity of reports will play a role as well. With the exception of the Condon Committee study, however, the general trend appears to be that the larger the database, the smaller the percentage of unexplained cases.

It has also been said that the ratio of IFOs/UFOs is large because witnesses do not report UFOs, they simply report “unusual objects” or “balls of fire” or “orbs” or other terms that do not explicitly mean UFOs. This appears to be disingenuous. A sighting of any kind of object reported to a UFO-related website that advertises it posts lists of UFOs is logically a sighting of a UFO. Similarly, any witness who posts to a website with an online “UFO Reporting Form” is clearly reporting a UFO.

Probably the most significant factor in calculating percentages of unexplained UFO cases is the low quality of UFO investigation today. During the period when the various USAF Projects were in operation, personnel were assigned to investigate UFO (or earlier, flying saucer) reports. Time and energy were spent in locating witnesses, interviewing them, visiting sighting locations and writing reports. During the early years of civilian UFO investigation, this was also the case, and thousands of volunteer UFO investigators could be dispatched to interview witnesses.

This is not the case today. The only large, civilian, membership-based, investigative UFO organization in existence today is MUFON, and its members are often limited in their ability to travel to visit UFO sighting locations. Large online websites to which most UFO reports are posted today cannot offer anything like the detailed investigations of previous organizations.

The result is that most UFO sighting reports are not adequately investigated. In some cases, an email or phone call is exchanged with a witness, if such contact information had been provided (most UFO reports online are anonymous). The sheer volume of cases prevents, in most situations, volunteer investigators and researchers from gathering sufficient information to evaluate all UFO cases received. Because of this, most cases in the Canadian UFO Survey are rated low on the Reliability scale. This obviously reduces the percentage of unexplained cases by some percent.

The reality is that our study of Canadian UFO reports involves examination of nearly one thousand cases each year and for each one (painstakingly) coding information from the available source or sources. Each case, therefore, is read carefully for content, but Ufology Research cannot investigate UFO cases reported to disparate organizations and individuals across Canada. We rely on the available information in most instances, although there are some exceptions. We are confident that our percentage of unexplained cases within a set of heterogenous UFO sighting reports is reasonable.