Tuesday, March 25, 2014
A few questions (and answers) about the 2013 Canadian UFO Survey
In a Facebook MUFON group,
noted American ufologist Curt Collins posted some questions to me about the 2013
Canadian UFO Survey. He has given me permission to put his questions and my
answers in the Ufology Research blog. Most of this is from March 23 to 25,
2014.
Curt: I see the witnesses’
data is categorized in several ways, but had a few questions: First, is there
an index or subcategory just for sightings where the witness unambiguously
reports seeing a flying vehicle? If not, is there any way to extract that?
Me: Do you mean a witness
seeing a structured object rather than just a light?
Curt: Exactly! At least,
in their opinion, it absolutely cannot be natural and unlikely to be manmade.
Me: The data points or
categories for each case were developed originally as a way of quickly coding
the textual information available on the report. They were actually developed
as far back as the late 1970s, when I was typing UFO data onto keypunch cards
(yes, I'm THAT old), which were limited in characters. Back then, I think we
were at 80 characters, not 140 like Twitter! We had to decide what information
could be easily coded and what information was available for the majority of
reports. After sorting through many hundreds of cases, we arrived at the lowest
common denominators available from all sources of UFO case data.
We used some of the coding
of the original UFOCAT and Hynek's classification system. Then I added a few
more. When we finally started the Survey in 1989, we had NL and DD, but I added
ND (Nocturnal Disc) for nocturnal structured objects that were more than simply
lights in the sky. The "Disc" designation is a matter of convenience,
since "Daylight Discs" are not discs all the time, either, and could
be other shapes. We also include a data point for "shape," so that if
a witness sees a structured object that could be called a "craft," it
would be a ND. Also, the category of Shape would provide additional info about
what was observed. Plus, there's the Comments at the end of the line, where a
note about other characteristics of the observed object can be included.
The other point is that
many witnesses have virtually no ability to discern whether they have seen a
structured vehicle or not. A case in point is the term "Orb" which
can be used to describe something that is spherical, but also simply to refer
to a light without any shape or form.
Not to mention the natural
ability to "fill in" a black object between three or more lights in
the sky, thus creating a "triangle" where there is none.
Curt: Good answer about
the data sorting―I feel like I've had a backstage tour! I understand about
witness reliability problems, but was wondering just what percentage of reports
were of Unidentified Flying Vehicles, since the press seems to think that ALL
of them are!
Me: I use "PS"
for "Point Source" to indicate objects that don't have a discernable
structure for coding. A huge majority of NLs are PSs. I think most DDs are not
point sources, although there are exceptions.
Curt: Some researchers
feel the "UFO" label is contaminated and use UAP or UAO to distance
their work from "flying saucer" silliness. What term to you prefer
and why?
Me: I think it's important
to realize that "UFO" was adopted by the USAF to distinguish it from
the silliness to begin with. A number of other terms were proposed over the
years, too. My favourite was TOPA, or "Transient Optical Phenomenon of the
Atmosphere," proposed by a scientist in a paper. The reality is that even
if we start using UAP regularly, the media will still invoke aliens at every
opportunity. Also, the public is familiar with “UFO” and even if they assume aliens,
at least we don't have to explain as much as if we changed the term. Also,
having to explain that “U” means “Unidentified” gives us the opportunity to
educate the public and media about what we mean, so I'd still prefer to use
UFO.
Curt: If you asked a
random group to draw two pictures, first one of a UFO and the second of a
Flying Saucer, what do you think you'd get?
Me: This reminds me of the
experiment with UFO abductees done by Stuart Appelle comparing drawings made by
non-abductees with those made by "real" abductees. Don Dondieri
thought the drawings were totally different, suggesting UFO abductees were
real, although some debunkers thought the drawings were similar enough to say
imaginary UFO abductions were just as "real."
This also reminds me of an
experiment I did using drawings made by kids in a grade school many years ago.
I had been contacted by parents of two kids and their teacher because the two
kids said they had been frightened by a large UFO that flew low over their
heads one night while they were playing in the schoolyard. I had permission to
talk with the kids, and then because all the other kids in the class were
excited about the story, was asked to give a presentation to the entire class
about UFOs. I took the opportunity to ask all of the class, including the two
who had "really" seen the UFO, to draw a UFO.
The result was
interesting. The kids all drew fantastic images of aliens and elaborate
spacecraft, including some nice artwork of Darth Vader and assorted robots. But
the two kids who had "really" seen the UFO drew the UFO as they had
seen it: a dull grey cigar in a black sky.
So my guess would be that
asking groups to draw UFOs and flying saucers would result in identical images,
although many who were asked to draw a "saucer" would draw a disc.
Now, if you asked the two groups to draw an "alien spaceship" and a
UFO, they would be identical.
Curt: Thanks for the
answer. I'll have to look up that [Appelle] experiment. It's also interesting
about your school children drawing results. I don't think people seeing UFOs on
television makes them see them in the sky, but sometimes it can cause them to
interpret a genuine indistinct object into a flying saucer. Now, I wish I'd
asked for a lab and human test subjects for Christmas. I'd like to do some
experiments...
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
The 2013 Canadian UFO Survey
The 2013 Canadian UFO Survey is published on the website:
http://survey.canadianuforeport.com
Data for the year is available there, as are previous years' Surveys and many charts and graphs.
The text is presented below.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://survey.canadianuforeport.com
Data for the year is available there, as are previous years' Surveys and many charts and graphs.
The text is presented below.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*****
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
/ .................. \
=========================
+ +
++ ++
The 2013
CANADIAN UFO SURVEY:
an analysis of UFO reports
in Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiled by
Geoff Dittman
and
Chris A. Rutkowski
with
Ashley Kircher
Data Sources:
Yukon UFO
UFO Updates
Para-Researchers
of Ontario
National UFO
Reporting Center
Filer’s Files
UFOINFO
UFO*BC
UFOS North
West
Alberta UFO
Study Group
Mutual UFO
Network
Houston, BC,
Centre for UFO Research
Ufology
Research
Transport
Canada
National
Defence and the Canadian Forces
YouTube
NOUFORS
PSICan
Sightings.com
GARPAN
Centre d'Études des OVNIs
Editor
Chris
Rutkowski, Ufology Research
Data Entry,
Compilation and Analyses
Geoff Dittman,
Ufology Research
Ashley Kircher,
Ufology Research
Published by
Ufology Research
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
© 2014 Ufology
Research
The 2013 Canadian UFO Survey
Overview
Since 1989, Ufology Research
(formerly Ufology Research of Manitoba) has solicited UFO case data from known
and active investigators and researchers in Canada. The goal has been to
provide data for use by researchers trying to understand this controversial
phenomenon. No comparable studies are currently produced by any other research
group in North America. Similar programs exist in several other countries such
as Sweden, where UFO report data is analysed by the Archives for UFO Research,
and in Italy by Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici.
2013 marked the 25th year of
collecting and analysing Canadian UFO report data by Ufology Research. A
25-year compilation and analyses of a quarter-century of Canadian UFO data is
in preparation.
With some gaps in data, tables of
most Canadian UFO reports included in the annual surveys from 1989 to the
present are available online at: http://survey.canadianuforeport.com
The 2013 Canadian UFO Survey:
Summary of Results
·
There were 1,180 UFO sightings
reported in Canada in 2013, or about three each day.
·
The number of cases in 2013 is the
second-highest number of UFO sightings recorded in Canada during the last 25
years.
·
The 1,180 UFO cases reported in 2013
is much less than the peak year of 2012, when almost 2,000 reports were
recorded. We suspect this was an anomaly, and likely due to many people excited
about the so-called “end of the world” in 2012 according to the Mayan Calendar.
·
In 2013, Ontario had more than 40
per cent of all Canadian UFO reports.
·
In 2013, about 14 per cent of all
UFO reports were classified as unexplained.
·
The typical UFO sighting lasted
approximately 13 minutes in 2013.
The study found that more than half
of all UFO sightings were of simple lights in the sky. Witnesses also reported point
sources of light, spheres and boomerangs.
Results of this study show that many
people continue to report unusual objects in the sky, and some of these objects
do not have obvious explanations. Many witnesses are pilots, police and other
individuals with reasonably good observing capabilities and good judgement.
Numbers of reported UFO sightings
remain high. Several theories for this can be suggested: more UFOs are present
and physically observable by witnesses; more secret or classified military
exercises and overflights are occurring over populated areas; more people are
unaware of the nature of conventional or natural objects in the sky; more
people are taking the time to observe their surroundings; more people are able
to report their sightings with easier access to the Internet and portable
technology; or even that the downturn in the economy is leading to an increased
desire by some people to look skyward for assistance.
Although the largest percentage of
reported UFOs is simply lights in the night sky, a small number are objects
with definite shapes observed within the witnesses’ frame of reference.
Popular opinion to the contrary,
there is no incontrovertible evidence that some UFO cases involve
extraterrestrial contact. The continued reporting of UFOs by the public and the
yearly increase in numbers of UFO reports suggests a need for further
examination of the phenomenon by social, medical and/or physical scientists.
For further information, contact:
Ufology Research via e-mail:
canadianuforeport@hotmail.com
Twitter: @ufologyresearch
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
|
2012
|
1981
|
525.3
|
2013
|
1180
|
551.4
|
Total
|
13786
|
*― Data for 2009 has not yet been
added to the database.
The number of UFO reports per year
has varied, although there has been a general trend towards a steady increase
in yearly UFO report numbers over 25 years, with spikes in some years such as
1993, 2008 and 2013, when there were almost 2,000 reports in one year. Although
there may be a perceived notion that UFOs are not being reported with as much
frequency as in the past, this is not true. UFOs have not “gone away.” This data
clearly contradicts comments by those who would assert that UFOs are a ‘passing
fad’ or that UFO sightings are decreasing.
Method
Data for each case was obtained by
Ufology Research from participating researchers across Canada or through data
mining of known websites devoted to UFO reports. The information then was coded
by members of Ufology Research and entered into a database and statistically
analysed.
An example of the coding key is as
follows:
Example: 2013 01 09 1530 Vernon BC DD 900 silver 2
ps 6 5
UFOBC p 4 objs. seen
Field: 1
2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15
16
Field 1 is a default YEAR for the
report.
Field 2 is the MONTH of the
incident.
Field 3 is the DATE of the sighting.
Field 4 is the local TIME, on the
24-hour clock.
Field 5 is the geographical LOCATION
of the incident.
Field 6 is the PROVINCE where the
sighting occurred.
Field 7 is the TYPE of report, using
the Modified Hynek Classification System.
Field 8 is the DURATION of the sighting,
in seconds (a value of 600 thus represents 10 minutes).
Field 9 is the primary COLOUR of the
object(s) seen
Field 10 is the number of WITNESSES
Field 11 is the SHAPE of the
object(s) seen
Field 12 is the STRANGENESS of the
report.
Field 13 is the RELIABILITY of the
report.
Field 14 is the SOURCE of the
report.
Field 15 is the EVALUATION of the
case.
Field 16 includes any COMMENTS noted
about the case.
Analyses of the
Data
Distribution of UFO Reports Across
Canada
In 2013, Ontario had about 41 per
cent of the total number of UFO sightings reported in Canada, the most reports
of any province, and exactly the same percentage as in both 2011 and 2012.
British Columbia was second, with about 25 per cent of the total. 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.
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
|
2012
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
399
|
323
|
55
|
124
|
822
|
124
|
41
|
61
|
2
|
23
|
2013
|
4
|
0
|
2
|
298
|
129
|
33
|
65
|
480
|
86
|
32
|
31
|
2
|
8
|
NT
|
NU
|
YT
|
BC
|
AB
|
SK
|
MB
|
ON
|
PQ
|
NB
|
NS
|
PI
|
NF
|
|
Total
|
95
|
19
|
171
|
3770
|
1496
|
663
|
1075
|
4428
|
1151
|
278
|
420
|
34
|
140
|
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 2012
Rank
|
City
|
Province
|
Number of Reports
|
1
|
Vancouver
|
BC
|
116
|
2
|
Toronto
|
ON
|
111
|
3
|
Winnipeg
|
MB
|
39
|
4
|
Calgary
|
AB
|
37
|
5
|
Hamilton
|
ON
|
36
|
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)
|
116
|
|
Toronto
|
(Incl. Mississauga, Brampton,
Scarborough, Oshawa, Whitby, Ajax, Pickering, Etobicoke, Newmarket, Richmond
Hill, Markham, Oakville)
|
111
|
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 2013, July and August numbers were again high, but
report numbers were unusually high in January 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
|
2012
|
109
|
136
|
150
|
180
|
166
|
140
|
272
|
283
|
194
|
151
|
81
|
116
|
2013
|
117
|
43
|
69
|
53
|
122
|
153
|
156
|
146
|
83
|
98
|
63
|
68
|
J
|
F
|
M
|
A
|
M
|
J
|
J
|
A
|
S
|
O
|
N
|
D
|
|
Totals
|
952
|
802
|
995
|
979
|
1001
|
1166
|
1774
|
1915
|
1274
|
1226
|
854
|
792
|
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 increased significantly in 2013, but
most cases still were Nocturnal Lights.
Just under two per cent of all reported UFO cases in 2013 were Close
Encounters, emphasizing the reality that 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
|
2012
|
1070
|
673
|
155
|
32
|
8
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
29
|
2013
|
631
|
333
|
145
|
9
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
NL
|
ND
|
DD
|
C1
|
C2
|
C3
|
C4
|
EV
|
RD
|
PH
|
|
Totals
|
7829
|
2871
|
1585
|
198
|
86
|
47
|
45
|
71
|
1
|
64
|
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. UX cases are listed in the database, but not in the table above.
(UX cases are those in which
anomalous phenomena are reported and believed by witnesses to be UFO-related,
but no UFO was actually seen. These include reports of “odd sounds” and
dreams.)
Hourly Distribution
The hourly distribution of cases has
usually followed a similar pattern every year, with a peak at 2200 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.
Time
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
12:00-12:59
|
8
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
13:00-13:59
|
12
|
9
|
8
|
12
|
14:00-14:59
|
7
|
8
|
14
|
13
|
15:00-15:59
|
13
|
7
|
14
|
3
|
16:00-16:59
|
15
|
7
|
15
|
19
|
17:00-17:59
|
24
|
19
|
22
|
23
|
18:00-18:59
|
33
|
26
|
42
|
35
|
19:00-19:59
|
54
|
63
|
84
|
64
|
20:00-20:59
|
78
|
96
|
153
|
83
|
21:00-21:59
|
107
|
114
|
311
|
141
|
22:00-22:59
|
140
|
148
|
363
|
180
|
23:00-23:59
|
132
|
109
|
217
|
144
|
00:00-00:59
|
53
|
50
|
129
|
116
|
01:00-01:59
|
48
|
38
|
66
|
27
|
02:00-02:59
|
30
|
27
|
55
|
28
|
03:00-03:59
|
22
|
19
|
45
|
22
|
04:00-04:59
|
11
|
14
|
33
|
7
|
05:00-05:59
|
7
|
15
|
20
|
9
|
06:00-06:59
|
17
|
18
|
20
|
15
|
07:00-07:59
|
7
|
6
|
14
|
9
|
08:00-08:59
|
5
|
1
|
7
|
3
|
09:00-09:59
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
9
|
10:00-10:59
|
7
|
2
|
8
|
11
|
11:00-11:59
|
12
|
3
|
9
|
7
|
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 2013 was 13.5 minutes, similar to 2012 when the average
duration was about 15 minutes. These significant lengths of time 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.
Colour
In cases where colours of an object
were reported by witnesses, the most common colour in 2013 was orange, similar
to previous years. The next most common colours were red, white and
“multi-coloured.” 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
|
2012
|
2013
|
White
|
162
|
164
|
233
|
107
|
Multicoloured
|
95
|
82
|
162
|
57
|
Orange
|
158
|
219
|
546
|
284
|
Yellow
|
26
|
41
|
57
|
37
|
Red
|
77
|
103
|
209
|
119
|
Green
|
32
|
21
|
69
|
38
|
Silver
|
21
|
14
|
21
|
16
|
Black
|
26
|
24
|
39
|
28
|
Blue
|
30
|
16
|
47
|
40
|
Grey
|
8
|
7
|
20
|
8
|
Brown
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
Pink
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
Purple
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
Witnesses
The average number of witnesses per
case 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 2011, the average number of witnesses per
case was 1.74, and the value in 2012 remained about the same, at 1.79. In 2013,
the average number of witnesses per sighting was 1.71.
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.
Shape
Witnesses’ descriptions of the shapes
of UFOs vary greatly. In 2013, about 54 per cent were of “point sources”—that
is, “starlike” objects or distant lights, about the same as previous years. The
classic “flying saucer” or disc-shaped object comprised only around five per
cent of all UFO reports in 2013, contrary to popular opinion. Even the
“triangle” shape, which some ufologists have suggested has supplanted the
classic “saucer,” was only five percent of the total in 2013.
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
|
2012
|
2013
|
Ball/Globe/Round/Orb/Sphere
|
186
|
144
|
296
|
148
|
Fireball
|
61
|
61
|
158
|
65
|
Boomerang/Crescent/Chevron/V/U
|
18
|
7
|
24
|
16
|
Cigar/Cylinder
|
35
|
43
|
47
|
22
|
Disk/Saucer
|
33
|
42
|
37
|
55
|
Irregular
|
130
|
97
|
223
|
79
|
Oval/Egg/Elliptical
|
15
|
24
|
30
|
29
|
Point Source
|
440
|
554
|
1076
|
640
|
Triangle
|
42
|
43
|
62
|
58
|
Diamond
|
2
|
1
|
8
|
|
Rectangle
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
16
|
Strangeness
The assigning of a Strangeness rating to a UFO report is
based on a classification adopted by researchers who noted that the inclusion
of a subjective evaluation of the degree to which a particular case is in
itself unusual might yield some insight into the data. For example, the
observation of a single, stationary, starlike light in the sky, seen for
several hours, is not particularly unusual and might likely have a prosaic
explanation such as that of a star or planet. On the other hand, a detailed
observation of a saucer-shaped object which glides slowly away from a witness
after an encounter with grey-skinned aliens would be considered highly strange.
The numbers of UFO reports according
to strangeness rating show an inverse relationship such that the higher the
strangeness rating, the fewer reports. The one exception to this relationship
occurs in the case of very low strangeness cases, which are relatively
few in number compared to those of moderate strangeness. It is suggested this
is the case because in order for an observation to be considered a UFO, it must
usually rise above an ad hoc level of strangeness, otherwise it would
not be considered strange at all.
The average strangeness rating for
UFO reports during 2013 was 3.67, up from the 2012 average of 3.21, where 1 is
considered not strange at all and 9 is considered exceptionally unusual. Most
UFOs reported are of objects which do not greatly stretch the imagination.
Hollywood-style flying saucers are, in reality, relatively uncommon in UFO
reports. The overall Strangeness rating of Canadian UFO reports has been
sliding slightly over time.
Reliability
The average Reliability rating of Canadian UFO
reports in 2013 was 3.8, down significantly from an average of 4.6 in 2012. In
most years, there are approximately the same number of higher quality cases as
those of low quality. However, in 2013, more reports had minimal information on
the witness, little or no investigation and incomplete data or description of
the object(s) observed. Higher
reliability cases include actual interviews with witnesses, a detailed case
investigation, multiple witnesses, supporting documentation and other evidence.
Since data for many cases are taken from websites and second-hand postings, or
in fact self-postings, there is usually no significant investigation of UFO
sightings. Well-investigated cases likely comprise only a small fraction of all
UFO data, a fact that makes posted UFO case data have limited value.
Reliability and Strangeness
ratings tend to vary in classic bell-shaped curves. In other words, there are
very few cases which were both highly unusual and well-reported. Most cases are
of medium strangeness and medium reliability. These are the “high-quality
unknowns” which will be discussed in a later section of this study. However,
there are also very few low-strangeness cases with low reliability.
Low-strangeness cases, therefore, tend to be well-reported and probably have
explanations.
Sources
UFO data used in this study were
supplied by many different groups, organizations, official agencies and private
individuals. Since this annual survey began in the late 1980s, more and more
cases have been obtained and received via the Internet.
About 32 per cent of Canadian cases in
2013 were reported to the large organization known as the Mutual UFO Network
(MUFON), which has a good online reporting system. Traditionally, the lion’s
share of reports used as data came through Sightings.com, which has been
relaying UFO cases reported through the former Houston, BC, Centre for UFOs
(HBCCUFO), with about 32 per cent in 2010 and 35 per cent in 2011, but up to 45
per cent in 2012 and down to 24 per cent in 2013. The decline in 2013 was due
to HBCCUFO scaling down its activity.
In 2013, about nine per cent of the
total cases were obtained through the private and non-profit National UFO
Reporting Center in the USA. Like MUFON, NUFORC has a toll-free telephone
number for reporting UFOs and a large sightings list created through voluntary
submission of online report forms by witnesses.
About five per cent of all UFO
sightings reported in 2013 were sent directly to Ufology Research.
Less than one per cent of all cases
came as a result of information obtained through Transport Canada and the
Department of National Defence.
It should be noted that the
preparation of this Survey is becoming quite challenging. Few UFO investigators
or researchers actually submit case data to UFOROM anymore, requiring
considerable searching of online sources. And, although many sites post
information about UFO sightings, very little actual UFO investigation is being
conducted. In fact, it could be said that the science of UFO investigation has
nearly become extinct. This does not bode well for an area of study that is
under constant criticism by debunkers wishing to prove the unscientific nature
of the subject.
Evaluation (Explanations)
There were four operative categories
in the Canadian UFO Survey: Explained,
Insufficient Information, Possible
or Probable Explanation, and Unknown
(or Unexplained). It is important to note that a classification of Unknown does not imply that an
alien spacecraft or mysterious natural phenomenon was observed; no such
interpretation can be made with certainty, based solely on the given data.
The
breakdown by Evaluation for 2013
cases was similar to results from previous years, with the percentage of
unexplained cases less than 15 per cent of the total. There were a few slight
differences in 2013 compared with previous years; the cases labelled as having
Possible or Probable explanations were at a high of 67 per cent, while the
cases considered as having Insufficient Information for an explanation were at
a low of 17 per cent. Together, however, they comprised a similar percentage of
reports as in previous years. The difference in 2013 reflects a subjective
evaluation by researchers who question whether a particular report has enough
information to consider it as having a possible explanation or if there is
simply not enough information to make that judgement. This situation has likely
arisen because very few UFO sightings are ever fully investigated, as most are
simply reported and published online, often without any follow-up or
investigation possible.
An Evaluation is made subjectively
by either or both the contributing investigators and the compilers of this
study. The category of Unknown
is adopted if there is extensive information or data available and/or if the
contributed data or case report contains enough information such that a
conventional explanation cannot be satisfactorily proposed. This does not
mean that the case will never be explained, but only that a viable explanation
is not immediately obvious. Cases are also re-evaluated periodically as
additional data or information is brought to attention or obtained through
further investigation.
The level and quality of UFO report
investigation varies because there are no explicit and rigourous standards for
UFO investigation. Investigators who are “believers” might be inclined to
consider most UFO sightings as mysterious, whereas those with more of a
skeptical predisposition might tend to subconsciously (or consciously) reduce
the Unknowns in their files.
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%
|
2012
|
3.08%
|
39.90%
|
50.55%
|
7.47%
|
2013
|
1.61%
|
17.29%
|
66.53%
|
14.58%
|
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
|
2012
|
61
|
771
|
1002
|
148
|
2013
|
19
|
204
|
785
|
172
|
871
|
4595
|
6546
|
1703
|
In 2013, the percentage of Unknowns was 14.5 per cent. There were
172 Unknowns out of 1,180 total
cases in 2013.
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 48 high-quality Unknowns in 2013 (about four per cent of the total). This is in
line with previous studies, such as USAF Blue Book, which found three to four
per cent of their cases were "excellent" Unknowns. As it is, these 48 Canadian cases in 2013 can be reduced
further by eliminating those in which investigation is not complete or details
not made available for outside evaluation.
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 172
Unknowns in 2013 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.
Most Interesting
Canadian “Unknowns” in 2013
The following are those Canadian UFO
reports in 2013 which had a Reliability Rating greater than 6, a Strangeness
Rating greater than 6, were also assigned an Evaluation of Unknown, and for
which details are available for evaluation.
January 8, 2013 5:30
pm Musquodoboit, NS
Two children had been sledding on a
small hill when they saw a large object coming towards them over the trees.
They heard a beeping noise and watched the object shaped like “a massive hotel”
with protrusions and windows flew over a nearby house and out of sight.
January 25, 2013 9:23
pm Tsuu T’ina Reserve, AB
Strange lights were observed south
of her house by a witness who took photos with her camera. After about five
minutes the lights took off into the sky and then several military helicopters
were seen flying in the area. The incident was investigated by police.
May 4, 2013 2:45
am St-Jerome, PQ
A witness was on his balcony using
his telescope to look at a star when a bright flash lit up his surroundings. He
looked up to see a large rectangular object moving over the treetops and making
a whistling sound. After a few seconds, it disappeared.
July 13, 2013 9:00
pm Notre-Dame-de Ile-Perrot, PQ
A witness saw a red glowing sphere
moving horizontally over trees on the horizon, then it moved vertically upwards
and disappeared. It seemed to have “a kind of 'structure” and was apparently
solid.
September 27, 2013 8:51 pm Winnipeg, MB
An air traffic controller saw four
lights in a V-shaped formation moving together silently overhead. The witness
said the lights were at an altitude of about one or two thousand feet and were
heading slowly northwest. Because there was no visible aircraft beacon, the
witness did not believe the lights were on an ordinary aircraft.
September 28, 2013 8:13 pm Portage la Prairie, MB
A former helicopter pilot and two
other people watched as many as 50 orange lights moving in the southwest sky in
pairs following the same trajectory south to north. They watched the procession
for at least five minutes.
January 8, 2013 5:30 pm Musquodoboit, NS
January 25, 2013 9:23 pm Tsuu T’ina Reserve, AB
Appendix
In
addition to the six high-quality unknowns listed, one additional case was
thought to have significant merit to be mentioned:
During a
snowstorm on February 23, 2013, around 10:00 pm in St-Georges-de-Beauce, PQ, a
woman was washing her dishes while looking out her kitchen window. She saw
three orange lights coming from afar, and called to her husband to come look
with her outside. When the lights passed overhead, she took two photos and then
filmed a short video with her phone’s camera. The lights seemed to change shape
and were “morphing.” As they watched, another small flashing light joined the three
and sped away with them towards the northwest.
Labels: 2013 Canadian UFO Survey Canada reports sightings data analyses
