91 lines
4.4 KiB
Plaintext
91 lines
4.4 KiB
Plaintext
|
<EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
HYNEK SIGHTING REPORT CLASSIFICATIONS
|
|||
|
|
__________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
HYNEK:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is the traditional method of describing an event as a distant or
|
|||
|
|
close encounter of the first, second or third kind. The investigator should
|
|||
|
|
be aware that, unless the case report can reasonably rule out natural and
|
|||
|
|
man-made sources, the HYNEK rationale declares it to be a non-case, and so no
|
|||
|
|
value is given.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
HYNEK - __________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
DE-1 - Nocturnal Light CE-1 - Light/object in Proximity
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
DE-2 - Daylight Disc CE-3 - Physical Trace
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
DE-3 - Radar-visual CE-3 - Occupant
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
UFO reports differ in many details. But there are a number of similarities
|
|||
|
|
that recur in such features as shape, maneuverability, appearance,
|
|||
|
|
disappearance, sound and color. There are several basic observational
|
|||
|
|
categories into which sighting reports may be classified.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A. Relatively Distant Sightings
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Noctunal Lights. These are sightings of well-defined lights in the night
|
|||
|
|
sky whose appearance amd/or motion are not explainable in terms of
|
|||
|
|
conventional light sources. The lights appear most often as red, blue, orange
|
|||
|
|
or white. They form the largest group of UFO reports.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Daylight Discs. Daytime sightings are generally of oval or dis-shaped,
|
|||
|
|
metallic-appearing objects. They can appear high in the sky or close to the
|
|||
|
|
ground, and they are often reported to hover. They can seem to disappear with
|
|||
|
|
astounding speed.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Radar-Visual cases. Of special significance are unidentified "blips" on
|
|||
|
|
radar screens that coincide with and confirm simultaneous visual sightings by
|
|||
|
|
the same or other witnesses. These cases are infrequent.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
B. Relatively Close Sightings (within 200 yards)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Close Encounters of the First Kind (CE-I). Though the witness observes a
|
|||
|
|
UFO nearby, there appears to be no interaction with either the witness or the
|
|||
|
|
environment.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-II). These encounters include
|
|||
|
|
details of interaction between the UFO and the environment which may vary from
|
|||
|
|
interference with car ignition systems and electronic gear to miprints or
|
|||
|
|
burns on the ground and physical effects on plants, animals and humans.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. CLose ENcounters of the Third Kind (CE-III). In this category, occupants
|
|||
|
|
of a UFO - entities that are human-like ("humanoid") or not humanlike in
|
|||
|
|
apearance - have been reported. There is usually no direct contact or
|
|||
|
|
communication with the witness. However, in recent years, reports of
|
|||
|
|
incidents involving very close contact - even detainment of witnesses - have
|
|||
|
|
increased.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Kinds of Evidence
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In addition to eyewitness reports, scientific evidence for the presence of
|
|||
|
|
something very unusual falls in these categories:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Physical Traces. Compressed and dehydrated vegetation, broken tree
|
|||
|
|
branches, and imprints in the ground have all been reported. Sometimes a soil
|
|||
|
|
sample taken from an area where a UFO had been seen close to the ground will
|
|||
|
|
be determined, through laboratory analysis, to have undergone heating or other
|
|||
|
|
chemical changes not true of control sample.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Medical Records. Medical verification of burns, eye inflammations,
|
|||
|
|
temporary blindness, and other physiological effects attributed to encounters
|
|||
|
|
with UFOs - even the healing of previous conditions - can also constitute
|
|||
|
|
evidence, especially when no other cause for the effect can be determined by
|
|||
|
|
the medical examiner.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Radarscope Photos. A tape of traces from a radar screen on which a "blip"
|
|||
|
|
of a UFO is appearing is a powerful adjunct to a visual sighting, because it
|
|||
|
|
can be studied at leisure instead of during the heat of the moment of the
|
|||
|
|
actual sighting.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. Photographs. While it might seem that photographs would be the best
|
|||
|
|
evidence for UFOs, this has not been the case. Hoaxes can be exposed very
|
|||
|
|
easily. But even those photos that pass the test of instrumented analysis
|
|||
|
|
and/or computer enhancement often show nothing more than an object of unknown
|
|||
|
|
nature, usually some distance from the camera, and very often out of focus.
|
|||
|
|
For proper analysis of a photo, the negative must be available and the
|
|||
|
|
photographer, witnesses and circumstances must be known. In a few exceptional
|
|||
|
|
cases, photos do exist that have been thoroughly examined and appear to show
|
|||
|
|
a structured craft.
|
|||
|
|
==============================================================================
|