1005 lines
48 KiB
Plaintext
1005 lines
48 KiB
Plaintext
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
|
||
From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
|
||
Subject: UFOs in Canada
|
||
Message-ID: <C6AxLp.4tw@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
|
||
Summary: The annual report on UFOs in Canada for 1992
|
||
Keywords: Canada,UFO,report,UFOROM,1992
|
||
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
|
||
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:58:36 GMT
|
||
Lines: 994
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
*
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
/ .................. \
|
||
===========================
|
||
+ +
|
||
|
||
|
||
The 1992
|
||
CANADIAN UFO SURVEY
|
||
|
||
|
||
Compiled by
|
||
Chris A. Rutkowski
|
||
|
||
|
||
Contributors: ____________
|
||
|
||
Paul Anderson
|
||
Roy Bauer
|
||
Grant Cameron
|
||
Daniel Clairmont
|
||
Graham Conway
|
||
Lorne Goldfader
|
||
Robert Hawkes
|
||
Gordon Kijek
|
||
Victor Lourenco
|
||
Christian Page
|
||
Michael Strainic
|
||
Tom Theophanous
|
||
Ruth Walde
|
||
Bonnie Wheeler
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Published by
|
||
Ufology Research of Manitoba
|
||
Box 1918
|
||
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
||
Canada R3C 3R2
|
||
|
||
Converted into ASCII for disseminating in the Internet by
|
||
David Thacker
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The 1992 Canadian UFO Survey
|
||
|
||
|
||
Since 1989, UFO case data has been solicited from all known and active
|
||
investigators and researchers in Canada for analyses and comparison with
|
||
other compilations. Before that time, individual researchers would
|
||
normally maintain their own files, with little or no communication with
|
||
others. Even representatives of major UFO organizations often do not
|
||
regularly submit case data, and the parent organizations themselves tend
|
||
not to do much analyses with the data they do receive.
|
||
|
||
|
||
After favourable responses from the publication of previous Canadian
|
||
UFO Surveys, UFOROM decided to continue the systematic collection of raw
|
||
UFO report data in Canada and prepare yearly reports for general
|
||
circulation. It has been always felt that the dissemination of such data
|
||
would be of great advantage to researchers, so it is presented here once
|
||
again as data with some analysis.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The response from Canadian researchers to requests for 1992 data was
|
||
better than in previous years. More cases were submitted from more
|
||
investigators, including those in Ontario, resulting in a marked increase
|
||
in the number of cases used in the analyses. While this prevents direct
|
||
comparisons with previous years, this has the advantage of being more
|
||
comprehensive. There are still those researchers, however, who, for
|
||
whatever reasons, do not submit cases for the annual survey. In addition,
|
||
some researchers do not maintain useable case files and do not retain
|
||
quantitative criteria in their investigations (for example, contactee
|
||
groups). It is now suspected that only a small fraction of "active"
|
||
ufologists and self-proclaimed "researchers" actually investigate cases and
|
||
maintain useable records.
|
||
|
||
|
||
In 1989, 141 UFO reports were obtained for analysis. In 1990, 194
|
||
reports were recorded. In 1991, 165 reports were received. In 1992, 223
|
||
cases were examined. These reports came from contributing investigators'
|
||
files, press clippings and the files of the National Research Council of
|
||
Canada. The NRC routinely receives UFO reports from private citizens and
|
||
from RCMP, civic police and military personnel.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The number of cases in 1992 represents a 35% increase over the
|
||
previous year, which had been a 15% decrease from that of 1990. Assuming
|
||
an average of 180 cases per year, the variation is uniform in either
|
||
direction, and we can suggest that the number of UFO reports per year in
|
||
Canada is relatively constant, even allowing for the influx of cases from
|
||
new contributors.
|
||
|
||
|
||
In 1992, there were apparent significant increases in the number of
|
||
reports in Manitoba, while there was an apparent decrease in reports in
|
||
Alberta and Quebec. As usual, British Columbia represents the largest
|
||
fraction of UFO reports of all the provinces. Since 1990, BC has garnered
|
||
between 35% and 40% of the total number of cases per year. As mentioned in
|
||
previous annual reports, this is partly due to the highly efficient UFO
|
||
reporting system in that province, and the comparatively large number of
|
||
active investigators. The rest of the Provinces appear to have had average
|
||
numbers of reports in 1991.
|
||
|
||
|
||
TABLE 1
|
||
Distribution of UFO Reports by Province
|
||
|
||
|
||
BC AB SK MB ON PQ NB PEI NS NF YK NWT
|
||
|
||
1989 15 16 18 22 34 28 1 - 3 3 - 1
|
||
|
||
1990 76 9 10 20 21 36 7 3 5 4 1 2
|
||
|
||
1991 59 22 7 6 30 16 9 1 7 4 1 -
|
||
|
||
1992 90 8 9 23 56 10 9 - 3 4 3 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
The monthly breakdowns of reports during each year show slightly
|
||
different patterns from those of previous years. In 1989, there was a
|
||
significant increase in UFO reports in the late fall, with other months
|
||
maintaining what appeared to be a fairly constant "normal" level of
|
||
reports. But 1990 saw two major increases in report numbers in two months:
|
||
April and August. The "normal" level of monthly report numbers appeared to
|
||
be constant in other months, with minor fluctuations. In 1991, reports
|
||
peaked in August, but there was no single obvious trough, and there were an
|
||
abnormally large number of reports in the winter months. The 1992
|
||
breakdown again shows no clear trend in monthly distribution. In fact,
|
||
reports are fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, with no marked
|
||
increase in reports in either summer or winter. This is curious, since
|
||
previous analyses of UFO reports have almost always shown a peak in the
|
||
summer months, as would be expected because most UFO sightings are simple
|
||
NLs and there are generally more outdoor observers available during the
|
||
summer months. This would be especially expected in Canada, where the
|
||
seasonal temperatures vary considerably, and there is much less evening
|
||
outdoor activity in the winter. Nevertheless, UFO report numbers were not
|
||
significantly less in the winter than in the summer. An average of 18 UFO
|
||
reports per month was calculated from the data.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
TABLE 2
|
||
UFO Reports per Month
|
||
|
||
|
||
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 -
|
||
|
||
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
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Selecting only the cases labelled "unknown," two peaks are seen: one
|
||
in March and the other in July. Other months are distributed more evenly.
|
||
While it is tempting to regard these two peaks as real anomalies, given the
|
||
relatively small number of cases in the sample, it is more likely that they
|
||
are statistical artefacts.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
TABLE 2A
|
||
Monthly Breakdown of Unknowns
|
||
|
||
J F M A M J J A S O N D
|
||
|
||
1992 2 2 8 3 5 4 11 1 3 4 5 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
An analysis by report type shows a similar breakdown to that found in
|
||
previous years. The numbers of cases of a particular type remained roughly
|
||
constant except for the category of Nocturnal Lights, which exhibited
|
||
nearly a twofold increase in 1990. However, numbers of NLs were closer to
|
||
a 1989 level in 1991. Relative numbers of specific report types remained
|
||
within a close range of previous years' values. Nocturnal lights, for
|
||
example, were 60% of all reports in 1989, 73% on 1990, 67% in 1991, and 61%
|
||
in 1992. In general, NLs can be said to comprise about two-thirds of all
|
||
UFO reports.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
TABLE 3
|
||
UFO Report Types
|
||
|
||
|
||
NL ND DD CE1 CE2 CE3 CE4 EV RD PH
|
||
|
||
1989 84 20 16 10 7 - 2 2 - -
|
||
|
||
1990 141 24 15 2 1 - 4 3 - -
|
||
|
||
1991 110 26 13 7 4 1 2 - 1 1
|
||
|
||
1992 135 44 20 13 5 2 3 - - 1
|
||
|
||
|
||
For those unfamiliar with the categories, 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
|
||
|
||
CE1 (Close Encounter of the First Kind) - ND or DD occurring within
|
||
200 metres of a witness
|
||
|
||
CE2 (Close Encounter of the Second Kind) - CE1 where physical effects
|
||
left or noted
|
||
|
||
CE3 (Close Encounter of the Third Kind) - CE1 where figures/entities
|
||
are encountered
|
||
|
||
CE4 (Close Encounter of the Fourth Kind) - an alleged "abduction" or
|
||
"contact" experience
|
||
|
||
EV (Evidence) - a case where physical traces left by an event are the
|
||
primary claim
|
||
|
||
RD (Radar) - UFOs observed on radar
|
||
|
||
PH (Photograph) - photograph(s) of a UFO, but no actual sighting
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The category of Nocturnal Disc was created by UFOROM for
|
||
differentiation within its own report files. Similarly, Evidence is also
|
||
an ad hoc creation, and may not be applicable by other researchers.
|
||
Normally, Evidence would include such physical traces as "crop circles",
|
||
"landing rings" and "saucer nests". However, in 1990 there was a great
|
||
increase in the numbers of such traces discovered in North America, and it
|
||
was decided to treat these as separate from UFO reports in these Surveys.
|
||
[For the record, there were 27 "crop circles" and related traces discovered
|
||
in Canada in 1990, 39 in 1991, and 46 in 1992. Many of these were
|
||
investigated by UFO researchers, and a few were reported to the NRC.
|
||
UFOROM is associated with the North American Institute for Crop Circle
|
||
Research, which investigates such cases and publishes separate reports on
|
||
its findings.]
|
||
|
||
|
||
The breakdown by evaluative conclusions for 1992 cases can be shown to
|
||
be similar to results from previous years. There were three operative
|
||
categories: Insufficient Information, Possible or Probable Explanation, and
|
||
Unknown. Readers are warned that a classification of Unknown does not
|
||
imply that an alien spacecraft was observed; no such interpretation can be
|
||
made with certainty, based on the given data (though the probability of
|
||
this scenario is admittedly never zero). In most cases, the evaluations
|
||
are made subjectively by both the contributing investigators and the
|
||
compiler of this report. The category of Unknown is adopted only if the
|
||
contributed data or case report contains enough information 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.
|
||
|
||
|
||
In 1992, a change was adopted in order to include Explained cases in
|
||
the statistics. While all categories of UFO reports were solicited from
|
||
investigators, few included Explained cases in their submissions because
|
||
they were not, by definition, unidentified flying objects. However, this
|
||
raises several concerns. First, it is known that many UFOs become IFOs
|
||
only after moderate investigative efforts. There is no question that many
|
||
cases in the Possible or Probable category are in fact IFOs. Second,
|
||
previous studies of UFO reports, including Blue Book and the Colorado
|
||
project, tabulated IFOs as Explained cases and indicated these conclusions
|
||
in their reports. Third, whether consciously or subconsciously,
|
||
researchers may discard IFO cases as unnecessary and not submit them for
|
||
the total analyses. This will, naturally, skew the statistics in favour of
|
||
UFOs. As an illustration, one contributor to the annual survey noted that
|
||
"dozens" of other UFO reports were received but not tabulated because they
|
||
were immediately discernable as IFOs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
In 1991, two UFO reports were Explained, but not included in the
|
||
statistical calculations. In 1992, 17 were Explained, and were used in the
|
||
annual breakdown of data.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The hourly distribution of cases tended to follow the same pattern for
|
||
1992 as in previous years. There appears to be a peak near 2200 hours
|
||
local and a trough around 1000 hours local. In 1992, a secondary peak near
|
||
2300 hours local was also evident.
|
||
|
||
|
||
TABLE 4
|
||
UFO Reports by Conclusion
|
||
|
||
|
||
1989 1990 1991 1992
|
||
# % # % # % # %
|
||
|
||
Insufficient Info. 74 52.5 90 46.4 80 49.1 83 37
|
||
|
||
Poss./Prob. Expl. 47 33.3 78 40.2 69 42.3 74 33
|
||
|
||
Unknown 20 14.2 26 13.4 14 8.6 49 22
|
||
|
||
Explained - - - - (2) - 17 8
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The average number of witnesses per case went down from a value of
|
||
2.12/case in 1989 to 1.4/case in 1990, then up again to 1.91/case in 1991.
|
||
In 1992, the average number of witnesses was up again, at 2.36/case. It is
|
||
not known what this may indicate. It is possible that there might have
|
||
been a tendency for only one of a pair or group of witnesses to report an
|
||
incident in some situations, and, hence, this value would wax or wane
|
||
depending on the social factor. This may have been true in the NRC files,
|
||
which may not reflect the total number of witnesses sharing a UFO
|
||
experience. However, these figures still show that a typical UFO
|
||
experience has more than one witness, supporting the contention that UFO
|
||
sightings represent observations of physical phenomena. In fact, other
|
||
studies, including the 1992 analyses, suggest that the typical UFO
|
||
experience is shared by at least two witnesses.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The category of Duration is interesting in that it represents the
|
||
subjective length of time the UFO experience lasted. Naturally, these
|
||
times are greatly suspect because it is known that people tend to misjudge
|
||
the flow of time. However, some people can be good at estimating time, so
|
||
this value has some meaning. Although an estimate of "one hour" may be in
|
||
error by several minutes, it is unlikely that the correct value would be,
|
||
for example, one minute (disregarding the claims of "missing time" during
|
||
the abduction category of experiences). Furthermore, there have been cases
|
||
when a UFO was observed and clocked accurately, so that we can be
|
||
reasonably certain that UFO events can last considerable periods of time.
|
||
The average duration of a sighting can be calculated as a summation of all
|
||
given durations then divided by the number of cases with a stated duration.
|
||
The resulting value for 1991 was about 12 minutes, down from 19 minutes in
|
||
1990. In 1992, the value is again around 12 minutes. This surprisingly
|
||
long duration is likely due to the large number of sightings lasting only a
|
||
few seconds combined with a few that lasted several hours.
|
||
|
||
|
||
In cases where a colour of an object was reported in 1992, the most
|
||
common colour was white (55 cases), followed distantly by red (24 cases).
|
||
Other colours were also represented, although there is a noticeable change
|
||
from previous years, when green was a dominant colour. Since most UFOs are
|
||
nocturnal starlike objects, the abundance of white objects is not
|
||
surprising. The green coloured objects were, in general, bolides, which
|
||
were seen in significant numbers in 1991 and 1992.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Summary of Results
|
||
------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
As with previous annual Surveys, the 1992 Survey does not offer any
|
||
positive proof of the physical reality of UFOs. However, it does show that
|
||
some phenomenon which is called a UFO is continually being observed by
|
||
witnesses. The typical UFO sighting is that of two people observing a
|
||
moving, distant white or red light for a period of over 15 minutes. In
|
||
most cases, the UFO is likely to be eventually identified as a conventional
|
||
object such as an astronomical object. However, in a small percentage of
|
||
cases, some UFOs do not appear to have an easy explanation and they may be
|
||
given the label of "unknown".
|
||
|
||
|
||
What are these "unknowns"? An additional classification is useful to
|
||
try and better understand this kind of report. In the gathering of data
|
||
for the study, a value was assigned for a personal evaluation of the
|
||
Reliability of the report. This value gives the likelihood that a UFO
|
||
experience "really" occurred as described by the witness. Granted, it is
|
||
impossible for any investigator to judge this absolute value; often, a
|
||
subjective value for two categories of "strangeness" and "reliability" is
|
||
assigned. The Reliability value is a subjective value imposed by the
|
||
investigator or compiler (or both) with a scale such that the low values
|
||
represent cases with little information content and observers of limited
|
||
observing abilities and the higher values represent those cases with
|
||
excellent witnesses (pilots, police, etc.) and also are well-investigated.
|
||
Naturally, cases with higher values are preferred. The Strangeness value
|
||
is another subjective evaluation of the case, and assigned a value of 0 to
|
||
9, based on the peculiarity of the experience. NLs with little variance
|
||
from the appearance of a star or aircraft are given low Strangeness values,
|
||
while cases involving entities or structured craft observed at close range
|
||
(and therefore unlikely to be conventional objects) are given high
|
||
Strangeness values.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The average Reliability of reports was 6.21, and the average
|
||
Strangeness was 5.64. In other words, most UFO reports are only slightly
|
||
unusual (perhaps a light maneuvering in an odd manner unlike an aircraft's
|
||
normal flight pattern), and are either minimally-investigated, reported by
|
||
average observers, or both.
|
||
|
||
|
||
More revealing is the ratio of Strangeness/Reliability. This is a
|
||
measure of the unusual nature of a case versus its information content. A
|
||
ratio of unity suggests that an "uninteresting" case, probably explained
|
||
easily as a conventional object, has a low information content.
|
||
Alternatively, unity can suggest a case with high Strangeness, perhaps a
|
||
Close Encounter, has high information content and is well-investigated. A
|
||
ratio near zero implies a conventional object that is well-observed and is
|
||
well-investigated. A ratio greater than unity implies a report has high
|
||
strangeness but low information content. A possible such case would be a
|
||
close encounter case that is not well-investigated, and may be more
|
||
anecdotal than "real".
|
||
|
||
|
||
Explained reports had an average S/R ratio of 0.586. Cases with
|
||
Possible or Probable explanations had an average ratio of 0.690. Cases
|
||
with Insufficient Information had ratios greater than unity, at 1.062, and
|
||
Unknown cases had an average ratio of 1.092. From these values, we can
|
||
suggest that as the Strangeness of reports increase, so does their
|
||
likelihood of being poorly investigated and of having less credible
|
||
witnesses.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Cases were coded and entered into an ACCESS database on a common PC
|
||
clone environment. The coding key is as follows:
|
||
|
||
Example:
|
||
9920115 1636 BC Fort Nelson DD 6 7 1.30 2 Red Disc P Sound heard
|
||
|
||
Field: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
|
||
|
||
Field 1 is the date, in YYYMMDD format (UFOROM is now coding to allow
|
||
for the next millennium).
|
||
|
||
Field 2 is the time, according to the 24-hour clock, local time.
|
||
|
||
Field 3 is the Province.
|
||
|
||
Field 4 is the Geographical Location, or common map name.
|
||
|
||
Field 5 is the Modified Hynek Classification.
|
||
|
||
Field 6 is the Strangeness, as described in the text.
|
||
|
||
Field 7 is the Reliability, as described in the text.
|
||
|
||
Field 8 is the duration of the sighting, in minutes and seconds
|
||
(i.e. 2 minutes, 15 seconds is 002.15)
|
||
|
||
Field 9 is the number of witnesses.
|
||
|
||
Field 10 is the colour of the primary object.
|
||
|
||
Field 11 is the shape of the primary object.
|
||
|
||
Field 12 is the Conclusion given to the case: I = Insufficient
|
||
information for an assessment; P = Possible or probable explanation,
|
||
given the facts; E = Explained; or U = Unknown or unexplained at the
|
||
present time.
|
||
|
||
Field 13 contains any short comments that distinguish individual
|
||
cases.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A further breakdown of Unknowns can be done to select only those cases
|
||
with high Reliability (i.e. Reliability 8). In the 1991 study, only 12
|
||
cases (7.3%) were high-reliability unknowns. In 1992, this number was 17
|
||
cases (7.62%). This agrees reasonably well with the 1989 results (4.9%)
|
||
and with the 1990 results (4.6%), but is slightly higher for reasons that
|
||
could include sampling techniques and inconsistent subjective evaluations.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The 1992 high-reliability cases were the following:
|
||
|
||
|
||
ND Case 9920122 1940 NB Woodstock
|
||
NL Case 9920202 2000 NB Hartland
|
||
ND Case 9920304 2130 ON Toronto
|
||
ND Case 9920419 0130 NF Gander
|
||
PH Case 9920502 1200 BC Kelowna
|
||
C1 Case 9920503 2010 BC Squamish
|
||
NL Case 9920513 2204 BC Langley
|
||
ND Case 9920624 0015 BC Vancouver
|
||
DD Case 9920703 0840 BC Kyuquot
|
||
ND Case 9920717 2200 AB Fairview
|
||
NL Case 9920720 1215 ON Toronto *
|
||
ND Case 9920720 2358 MB Winnipeg
|
||
ND Case 9920721 2330 MB Winnipeg
|
||
C1 Case 9920915 2300 BC Summerland
|
||
ND Case 9921007 1930 SK Moosomin
|
||
C4 Case 9921101 0200 MB Winnipeg
|
||
C1 Case 9921127 2000 SK Saskatoon
|
||
|
||
|
||
The interpretation of this list is that these cases were among the
|
||
most challenging of all the reports received in 1992. It should be noted
|
||
that many 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
|
||
above list.
|
||
|
||
|
||
NL Case 9920720 has erroneous data, as 1215 is hardly a nocturnal
|
||
time. The single C4 case needs some explanation as well. In general,
|
||
Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind are "abductions," and are difficult to
|
||
use as data in analyses. Often, C4s occur throughout an experiencer's
|
||
life. Furthermore, an exact time of an abduction is rarely given or
|
||
deduced by investigators. In fact, some C4s are only uncovered through the
|
||
(controversial) use of hypnosis, and the time of occurrence is vague or in
|
||
dispute. Because abduction experiences are difficult to pigeonhole into
|
||
various rigid categories and time constraints, it is usually inadvisable to
|
||
include such cases in UFO report analyses. The C4 case included in the
|
||
above list did seem to provide enough data for inclusion. The date and
|
||
time were accurately known, and represented a single event, not an ongoing
|
||
series of experiences. In addition, the witness voluntarily provided
|
||
details of the experience and submitted to an investigation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
In future analyses of UFO data, it is unlikely that similar C4s will
|
||
be included. The experiences do not lend themselves to statistical
|
||
comparisons with other UFO reports, and can be interpreted in many ways.
|
||
The C4s included in the 1992 Canadian UFO Survey provided insight into the
|
||
problems involved in their objective evaluation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
We have learned that UFOs are constantly being reported at a rate of
|
||
about ten per month across all of Canada, and one or two per month in most
|
||
provinces. Witnesses range from farmhands to airline pilots and from
|
||
teachers to police. Witnesses represent all age groups and racial origin.
|
||
What is being observed? In most cases, only ordinary objects. However,
|
||
this begs a question. If people are reporting things that can be
|
||
explained, then the objects they observed were "really" there. Were the
|
||
objects we can't identify "really" there as well? If so, what were they?
|
||
|
||
|
||
These are questions only continued, rational research can answer, and
|
||
only if researchers have the support and encouragement of both scientists
|
||
and the public.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Chris A. Rutkowski
|
||
Ufology Research of Manitoba
|
||
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
||
|
||
29 March 1992
|
||
|
||
|
||
Further Comments
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is most instructive to compare the UFOROM analyses with those of
|
||
the National Sighting Research Center of New Jersey, headed by Paul
|
||
Ferrughelli. The NSRC results have been reported in a series of
|
||
publications, a recent one being the National Sighting Yearbook 1991. The
|
||
NSRC collected UFO reports from newspaper clippings and UFO publications,
|
||
and analyzed the raw UFO data. Because of the difference in data sources,
|
||
a comparison with the UFOROM results will not be true. However, it is
|
||
still interesting to compare the two studies.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The NSRC tabulated a total of 195 American UFO reports in 1990, and
|
||
197 in 1992. These numbers are comparable with those of Canada for the
|
||
same years. However, because of the larger population, it is likely that
|
||
the USA had many, many more sightings that were never obtained through the
|
||
NSRC's sampling technique.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The NSRC study revealed essentially a reversed monthly distribution
|
||
for UFO reports compared with Canada. Whereas US sightings peaked in the
|
||
winter and had a noticeable trough in the summer, the Canadian peaks are
|
||
traditionally in the summer. However, the 1991 Canadian distribution was
|
||
much more even, with peaks in both winter and summer. Grouping the two
|
||
studies together yields a monthly distribution with troughs in mid-summer
|
||
and mid-winter, with slight variations month-to-month. It is possible to
|
||
speculate that with adequate report sampling, there would be no monthly
|
||
variation in the number of sightings, except for major flaps which would be
|
||
more noticeable in an international survey. The 1992 monthly distribution
|
||
is much more uniform, The 1992 American data had monthly distribution
|
||
peaks in March, September and October. No such peaks were evident in the
|
||
Canadian data.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Like the Canadian study, the American data was unevenly distributed
|
||
throughout the country. Most American reports in the 1991 study generally
|
||
came from just two states, Florida and Indiana. The Florida flap is likely
|
||
due to the Gulf Breeze reports which receive a great deal of media
|
||
attention. The distribution of sighting duration was nearly identical to
|
||
the Canadian study. The average duration of a typical UFO sighting is
|
||
about 15 minutes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
For the hourly distribution of UFO cases, the American study found a
|
||
symmetrical distribution with a pronounced peak at 9 PM local time and a
|
||
trough at around 9 AM local time. Canadian distributions are normally
|
||
about one hour later in each peak, but are otherwise identical in
|
||
distribution. Breakdown by Hynek classification yields identical
|
||
distributions within both American and Canadian studies, with NLs being
|
||
overwhelmingly predominant.
|
||
|
||
|
||
In summary, Ferrughelli's analyses of American UFO data yield results
|
||
remarkably similar to the UFOROM Canadian studies, despite the differences
|
||
in collection procedures. The most marked discrepancy between the two
|
||
studies was in the monthly distribution of UFO reports. This was probably
|
||
an artefact of the NSRC sampling technique, which does not involve
|
||
solicitation of UFO reports from investigators but significantly relies
|
||
upon newspaper accounts for many of its cases. The two studies are
|
||
complementary, and will aid further research into the UFO phenomenon.
|
||
|
||
|
||
[Reference: Ferrughelli, P. National Sighting Yearbook 1991. National
|
||
Sighting Research Center, 60 Allen Drive, Wayne, NJ 07470.]
|
||
|
||
|
||
Here is the 1992 Canadian UFO Survey sighting database in text format.
|
||
======================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
1,9920105,2300,BC,SQUAMISH,NL,1,2,.02,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,SUSPECTED
|
||
METEORITE
|
||
2,9920107,245,BC,SARDIS,NL,5,4,7.5,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,I,JUMPING STAR
|
||
3,9920212,603,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,1,4,20,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,CONVENTIONAL
|
||
AIRCRAFT?
|
||
4,9920215,1425,BC,SURREY,DD,5,4,1,1,,IRREGULAR,I,ODD-SHAPED CLOUD AND LIGHT
|
||
5,9920216,2100,BC,LADYSMITH,NL,2,2,10,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,STAR
|
||
6,9920220,2305,BC,QUESNEL,NL,7,6,55,3,,RECTANGLE,I,PLATE WITH COLUMNS?
|
||
7,9920223,300,BC,RICHMOND,NL,5,4,5,1,,IRREGULAR,I,CHANGED SHAPE SEVERAL
|
||
TIMES
|
||
8,9920307,1200,BC,SURREY,DD,7,5,20,1,SILVER,DISC,U,OBJECT APPEARED METALLIC
|
||
AND STRUCTURED
|
||
9,9920309,2000,BC,SURREY,ND,3,5,10,1,VARIABLE,OVAL,I,CHANGED COLOURS
|
||
10,9920309,200,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,ND,2,5,60,1,RED,POINT SOURCE,P,RED AND
|
||
BLUE FLASHING LIGHTS
|
||
11,9920311,2205,BC,PENTICTON,NL,1,4,.01,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,METEORITE
|
||
12,9920317,2111,BC,PRINCE GEORGE,NL,7,7,.3,2,GREEN,IRREGULAR,U, LONG,
|
||
GREEN, FLUORESCENT TUBE
|
||
13,9920317,1330,BC,KITTIMAT,NL,7,5,15,1,,CRESCENT,U,1/4 MOON-SHAPED OBJECT,
|
||
MOVING
|
||
14,9920318,305,BC,HORSESHOE BAY,NL,2,5,.03,1,WHITE,IRREGULAR,P,SLOW, BRIGHT
|
||
STREAK
|
||
15,9920320,1315,BC,VANCOUVER,DD,7,6,1,2,,SQUARE,I,
|
||
16,9920321,1000,BC,HEFFLEY CREEK,NL,3,4,30,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,STROBE,
|
||
FLASHES
|
||
17,9920326,25,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,3,5,5,3,,POINT SOURCE,I,SATELLITE
|
||
18,9920327,2310,BC,RICHMOND,NL,1,5,60,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,PLANET
|
||
19,9920401,1600,BC,MISSION,C1,8,7,45,2,,,I,OBJECT SEEN IN THE SKY
|
||
20,9920401,300,BC,WHITE ROCK,NL,5,4,.1,1,,POINT SOURCE,I,ROTATING, THEN
|
||
SPLIT IN TWO
|
||
21,9920402,215,BC,LILLOOET,NL,4,3,1,1,,POINT SOURCE,I,LIGHTS JUMPING UP AND
|
||
DOWN
|
||
22,9920404,115,BC,NEW WESTMINISTER,NL,6,6,.15,1,,TRIANGLE,P,
|
||
23,9920510,2100,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,NL,1,2,.1,1,,,I,
|
||
24,9920520,2330,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,5,3,2,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,7 LIGHTS,
|
||
ALTERNATING FLASHES
|
||
25,9920524,0,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,NL,6,6,10,1,,TRIANGLE,U,V SHAPED OBJECT, NO
|
||
SOUND
|
||
26,9920528,1500,BC,SURREY,DD,4,3,5,2,,,I,OBJECT WAS MOVING OVER POWER LINES
|
||
27,9920603,1845,BC,WHISTLER,NL,7,7,.25,1,,IRREGULAR,U,TOP-SHAPED OBJECT,
|
||
HOVERED
|
||
28,9920604,2015,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,7,5,2,2,,IRREGULAR,U,SILENT PLATFORM IN SKY
|
||
29,9920606,2000,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,1,2,.01,1,,,I,
|
||
30,9920612,1924,BC,PITT MEADOWS,NL,7,2,12,1,,,I,OPAQUE OBJECT;
|
||
ALTERNATIVELY MOVING AND STOPPING
|
||
31,9920703,840,BC,KYUQUOT,DD,8,8,90,1,,OVOID,U,SOLID-APPEARING EGG; SEEN
|
||
FROM TUGBOAT
|
||
32,9920708,2340,BC,SURREY,NL,1,2,.02,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,METEORITE
|
||
33,9920710,27,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,6,6,15,25,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,E,LASER SHINING
|
||
ON CLOUDS
|
||
34,9920711,2135,BC,CHILLIWACK,NL,4,4,120,1,,,I,UNDEFINED OBJECT, MOVING
|
||
35,9920716,1910,BC,SURREY,NL,1,2,.1,1,WHITE,,E,CAR LIGHTS
|
||
36,9920719,305,BC,WEST VANCOUVER,C3,9,6,1,2,,,U,ENCOUNTER WITH ENTITIES
|
||
37,9920817,100,BC,SURREY,NL,4,4,15,4,,,U,
|
||
38,9920818,1918,BC,COQUITLAM,NL,4,2,.1,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,E,DISTANT
|
||
HELICOPTER
|
||
39,9920831,320,BC,DUNCAN,NL,8,6,60,2,,IRREGULAR,I,CYLINDER WITH ARMS
|
||
40,9920901,1530,BC,VANCOUVER,DD,6,3,30,2,,ROUND,I,MOVING FAST
|
||
41,9920906,1650,BC,WEST VANCOUVER,NL,2,2,25,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,E,STAR
|
||
42,9921011,0,BC,NELSON,NL,5,5,.03,3,,SPHERE,I,BOUNCING BALL IN SKY
|
||
43,9921013,2100,BC,SECHELT,ND,7,6,40,1,,DISC,U,ROCKING BACK AND FORTH
|
||
44,9921015,2245,BC,VANCOUVER,ND,5,3,.05,1,,ROUND,I,ROUND OBJECT WITH LIGHTS
|
||
45,9921021,23,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,NL,6,3,10,2,,,I,FLUORESCENT LIGHT
|
||
46,9921021,250,BC,BURNABY,NL,6,5,2,1,,,I,3 SMALL OBJECTS, ONE LARGE
|
||
47,9921029,1930,BC,VERNON,NL,2,2,.1,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,STAR
|
||
48,9921116,30,BC,DELTA,ND,7,3,4,1,,TRIANGLE,U,DELTA WING; NOISE HEARD
|
||
49,9921119,535,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,1,2,.15,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,BUOY OR BOAT LIGHT
|
||
50,9921205,2000,BC,WILLIAMS LAKE,ND,7,6,8,1,,ROUND,U,BLINKING OBJECT
|
||
51,9921213,2310,BC,WHITE ROCK,NL,2,3,60,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,OBJECT
|
||
BOBBING IN THE AIR
|
||
52,9921214,2300,BC,WHITE ROCK,NL,2,3,90,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,OBJECT
|
||
BOBBING IN THE AIR
|
||
53,9921225,430,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,NL,8,3,30,1,,IRREGULAR,I,PENCIL SHAPE,
|
||
THEN FANNED OUT
|
||
54,9920829,120,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,C2,9,7,30,2,,,I,DOG'S FUR CAME OUT AFTER
|
||
ENCOUNTER
|
||
55,9921123,2320,BC,BURNABY,NL,5,4,5,1,,CIGAR,I,TORPEDO-SHAPED OBJECT
|
||
56,9921207,1915,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,6,2,60,1,WHITE,,E,SEARCHLIGHT
|
||
57,9920112,1900,ON,LAMBTON,C4,9,6,30,1,WHITE,,I,'ABDUCTION'?
|
||
58,9920120,2000,NB,WOODSTOCK,NL,8,8,10,10,,POINT SOURCE,I,VIDEO TAKEN BY
|
||
SOME WITNESSES
|
||
59,9920120,200,ON,BRACEBRIDGE,C4,9,6,30,2,,,I,'ABDUCTION'; ENTITIES SEEN
|
||
60,9920124,2215,BC,ALEXIS CREEK,ND,8,8,1,3,YELLOW,TRIANGLE,I,DELTA, SLOW
|
||
MOVING
|
||
61,9920126,1945,ON,LAMBTON,C1,7,8,60,4,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,P,PHOTOS TAKEN;
|
||
STAR?
|
||
62,9920200,2000,ON,MISSISSAUGA,ND,8,5,1,3,,DISC,I,SUCER WITH LIGHTS
|
||
63,9920202,2000,NB,HARTLAND,NL,9,9,2.5,2,,TRIANGLE,U,VIDEO OF TRIANGLES;
|
||
'BOW TIE'
|
||
64,9920218,630,BC,KAMLOOPS,C1,6,8,.15,1,RED,,P,CAME WITHIN 100FT;
|
||
DISAPPEARED
|
||
65,9920218,630,BC,KAMLOOPS,ND,6,8,.2,1,BLUE,ROUND,P,SHINY BALL WITH TAIL
|
||
66,9920218,630,BC,KAMLOOPS,ND,6,8,.1,2,BLUE,ROUND,P,SILVER/BLUE OBJ. WITH
|
||
TAIL
|
||
67,9920218,1830,BC,COQUITLAM,NL,6,8,.2,2,WHITE,,E,'BLOWTORCH LIGHT'
|
||
68,9920218,1825,BC,RICHMOND,NL,6,8,.1,1,BLUE,,P,BOLIDE?
|
||
69,9920218,1830,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,6,8,.15,2,GREEN,,E,BOLIDE
|
||
70,9920218,630,BC,KAMLOOPS,NL,4,9,.1,20,BLUE,,E,BOLIDE
|
||
71,9920311,230,YK,WHITEHORSE,NL,7,8,2,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,GROUP OF
|
||
ROTATING LIGHTS
|
||
72,9920312,1830,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,5,9,.15,2,WHITE,,P,'LIGHT STREAK'
|
||
73,9920326,1730,BC,SURREY,NL,9,7,5,1,YELLOW,POINT SOURCE,U,BRIGHT LIGHT
|
||
ENTERED CLOUD; DISSIPATED
|
||
74,9920415,600,YK,WHITEHORSE,C1,9,7,2.3,10,SILVER,BALL,U,GLOBE;BLINKING
|
||
LIGHT;FLEW THRU VALLEY
|
||
75,9920419,130,NF,GANDER,ND,8,9,8,3,RED,RECTANGLE,U,VIDEO OF WHITE OBJ
|
||
W/RED UNDERCARRIAGE
|
||
76,9920501,1945,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,ND,6,6,1,4,RED,,I,
|
||
77,9920502,1200,BC,KELOWNA,PH,8,8,5,3,,,U,HORSES REACTING;PHOTO OF SAUCER
|
||
IMAGE
|
||
78,9920503,2010,BC,SQUAMISH,C1,9,8,4,3,ORANGE,DISC,U,SLOW-MOVING;DISCONTINUOUS
|
||
TRAJECTORY
|
||
79,9920503,2130,BC,VANCOUVER,ND,7,8,.15,2,GREY,CIGAR,P,OBJ W/DULL GLOW;VERY
|
||
FAST;1000FT?
|
||
80,9920504,2350,BC,WHITE ROCK,C1,8,7,2,2,SILVER,DISC,U,SILVER/ORANGE DISC
|
||
MOVING AT TREETOP LEVEL
|
||
81,9920506,2015,BC,WEST VANCOUVER,NL,6,8,.3,1,RED,OVAL,I,HOVERED; MOVED AWAY
|
||
82,9920513,2204,BC,LANGLEY,NL,7,9,3,1,RED,POINT SOURCE,U,3 LIGHTS MOVING
|
||
TOGETHER
|
||
83,9920517,2130,BC,NEW WESTMINSTER,C1,8,5,10,3,SILVER,DISC,I,DISC WITH BLUE
|
||
'LASER BEAMS'
|
||
84,9920600,2000,YK,WHITEHORSE,ND,7,7,5,10,BLACK,TRIANGLE,U,TRIANGLE WITH
|
||
LIGHTS: AURORA AIRCRAFT?
|
||
85,9920602,1240,ON,PORT PERRY,NL,7,9,.25,6,YELLOW,POINT SOURCE,P,MAGNESIUM
|
||
FLARES
|
||
86,9920624,15,BC,VANCOUVER,ND,8,8,1.3,1,ORANGE,TRIANGLE,U,ORANGE GLOW
|
||
W/WHITE HAZE; LIGHTS ON EDGE
|
||
87,9920710,2300,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,NL,8,9,.3,3,WHITE,POINT
|
||
SOURCE,P,'METEOR' DESCENDED THEN ROSE AGAIN
|
||
88,9920720,1215,ON,TORONTO,NL,8,8,4,3,RED,,U,'LASER' SHINING ON GROUND;
|
||
ANIMALS SCARED
|
||
89,9920810,2000,AB,GUY,ND,8,4,1.3,3,GREY,DISC,I,PALE DISC, FLASH OF LIGHT
|
||
90,9920813,1250,ON,HAMILTON,NL,7,8,2,5,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,I,VIDEO TAKEN
|
||
NEAR BINBROOK
|
||
91,9920824,2000,SK,SASKATOON,NL,8,9,20,20,YELLOW,,E,MILITARY EXERCISE
|
||
92,9920915,2300,BC,SUMMERLAND,C1,9,8,20,3,GREY,DISC,U,'BIGGER THAN HOUSE';
|
||
BLUE BEAM
|
||
93,9921007,1930,SK,MOOSOMIN,ND,8,8,10,1,BLACK,DISC,U,DISC WITH LIGHTS
|
||
MANEUVERED NR. WITNESS
|
||
94,9921025,1400,BC,NORTH VANCOUVER,DD,7,8,15,2,WHITE,,P,'HI-TECH' PLANE
|
||
FLYING NR. OTHER PLANES; NO SOUND
|
||
95,9921103,1745,BC,CAMPBELL RIVER,ND,7,7,.3,2,GREY,TRIANGLE,U,'WING' WITH
|
||
LIGHTS ON EDGES
|
||
96,9921126,1820,BC,OLIVER,NL,7,7,1.5,1,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,I,SIGHTINGS ALSO
|
||
REPORTED IN USA
|
||
97,9921126,1950,SK,SASKATOON,NL,5,9,480,4,RED,POINT SOURCE,P,'YO-YO
|
||
MOVEMENTS'; PROBABLE STAR
|
||
98,9921126,2000,SK,SASKATOON,NL,6,8,60,10,,,I,MANY REPORTS OF OBJ. & LIGHTS
|
||
99,9921127,2000,SK,SASKATOON,C1,8,8,.45,1,GREY,TRIANGLE,U,'BOOMERANG'
|
||
OVERFLEW CAR; LIGHTS ON EDGES
|
||
100,9921200,2000,BC,108 MILE HOUSE,ND,8,8,1,4,BLUE,CYLINDER,I,LARGE
|
||
CYLINDERS MOVING AT TREETOP LEVEL
|
||
101,9921200,200,BC,HORSESHOE BAY,C1,8,9,20,1,YELLOW,,I,INTENSE LIGHT OVER
|
||
CAR, FOLLOWED WITNESS
|
||
102,9921218,400,BC,LAC LA HACHE,C3,9,7,30,1,,,I,3 ENTITIES SEEN BY CHILD;
|
||
VERY UPSET
|
||
103,9920831,2215,NB,ALMA,NL,3,9,.06,1,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,E,BOLIDE
|
||
104,9920901,2220,NB,SACKVILLE,NL,3,9,.02,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,E,BOLIDE
|
||
105,9920913,2114,ON,LONDON,NL,3,9,.04,1,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,E,BOLIDE
|
||
106,9920915,0,NB,SACKVILLE,NL,3,9,.02,1,,POINT SOURCE,E,BOLIDE
|
||
107,9921013,18,ON,LONDON,NL,3,9,.01,2,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,E,BOLIDE,
|
||
FRAGMENTED
|
||
108,9921121,0,ON,OTTAWA,NL,3,5,.01,1,,POINT SOURCE,I,PROBABLE BOLIDE
|
||
109,9921203,2000,AB,FORT MCMURRAY,NL,3,9,.1,1,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,E,BOLIDE
|
||
110,9921209,2245,PQ,TADOUSSAC,NL,6,9,.02,1,,POINT SOURCE,I,'LOUD BANG'
|
||
111,9921216,645,SK,SASKATOON,NL,3,9,1,5,,POINT SOURCE,I,PROBABLE BOLIDE
|
||
112,9920325,2000,MB,CROSS LAKE,NL,7,7,30,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,VIDEO OF
|
||
'STARS';APPARITION OF VIRGIN MARY
|
||
113,9920813,100,ON,WINONA,NL,6,7,20,1,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,I,2 LIGHTS MOVING
|
||
NEAR CN TOWER
|
||
114,9920813,0,ON,HAMILTON,NL,5,5,15,1,WHITE,,I,
|
||
116,9920814,100,ON,HAMILTON,NL,6,7,2,1,ORANGE,,I,7 LIGHTS IN TRIANGULAR
|
||
FORMATION
|
||
117,9920505,2100,ON,BELMONT,DD,8,7,1,4,WHITE,DISC,P,5 PHOTOS IN SEQUENCE;
|
||
BLIMP?
|
||
118,9920112,1900,ON,SARNIA,ND,6,6,30,1,,,I,HOVERED,MOVED TOWARDS WITNESS
|
||
119,9920125,200,ON,GRAVENHURST,NL,5,4,5,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,OBJ. OVER TREES;
|
||
WITNESS 5 YRS. OLD
|
||
120,9920125,0,ON,PENETANGUSHING,NL,4,7,1,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,DISTANT LIGHT,
|
||
HIGH SPEED
|
||
121,9920320,2200,ON,HAMILTON,ND,7,7,2,2,RED,DISC,I,DISC FOLLOWED CAR
|
||
122,9920505,2230,ON,LONDON,NL,4,7,5,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,BRIGHT LIGHT
|
||
MOVING NEAR HORIZON
|
||
123,9920531,2345,ON,TORONTO,ND,6,7,5,1,WHITE,TRIANGLE,I,WEDGE-SHAPED OBJ.
|
||
WITH COLOURED LIGHTS
|
||
124,9920524,2000,ON,MISSISSAUGA,NL,3,6,3,6,WHITE,POINT
|
||
SOURCE,P,SLOW-MOVING; 1KM DISTANT?
|
||
125,9920530,2300,ON,SCARBOROUGH,NL,5,7,5,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,3 PAIRS OF
|
||
LIGHTS MOVING OVER LAKE
|
||
126,9920520,1600,ON,UXBRIDGE,DD,8,7,30,2,,TRIANGLE,I,HOVERING OBJECT;
|
||
4000FT ALT.?
|
||
127,9920602,1600,ON,SCARBOROUGH,DD,7,7,3,2,SILVER,IRREGULAR,I,'BUMPY' OBJ.
|
||
VARYING SPEED
|
||
128,9920721,30,ON,TORONTO,NL,7,7,3,4,,,I,'LASER BEAM' ON GROUND; NOISE LIKE
|
||
TRUCK BRAKES
|
||
129,9920813,50,ON,GLANBROOK,ND,6,7,4,2,,ROUND,I,VIDEO OF HOVERING BRIGHT
|
||
OBJECT
|
||
130,9921024,2000,ON,POINT PELEE,NL,4,6,60,5,,POINT SOURCE,I,UNUSUAL DISTANT
|
||
LIGHTS
|
||
131,9921103,2000,ON,TORONTO,ND,6,6,.3,1,,TRIANGLE,I,
|
||
132,9921203,200,ON,TORONTO,NL,3,7,1,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,MULTIPLE
|
||
HOVERING LIGHTS
|
||
133,9920315,2215,ON,MISSISSAUGA,C1,8,6,4,2,GREEN,DISC,U,100 YDS AWAY;
|
||
METALLIC WITH LIGHTS
|
||
134,9920304,2130,ON,TORONTO,ND,8,8,45,8,GREEN,IRREGULAR,U,'FLUORESCENT
|
||
LIGHT' STATIONARY ABOVE CLOUDS
|
||
135,9920102,1630,NF,WESLEYVILLE,DD,6,6,6,1,BLACK,ROUND,I,NRC N92/1
|
||
136,9920109,1720,PQ,AYLMER,DD,8,5,1,1,WHITE,DISC,U,NRC N92/2; DRAWING; 8
|
||
YR. OLD GIRL; NOISE HEARD
|
||
137,9920117,1800,BC,TOFINO,ND,4,7,.1,2,YELLOW,TRIANGLE,E,NRC N92/3; BOLIDE
|
||
138,9920122,1940,NB,WOODSTOCK,ND,8,8,80,2,BLUE,TRIANGLE,U,NRC N92/4; 10
|
||
MIN. VIDEO
|
||
139,9920117,2050,MB,BIRDS HILL PARK,NL,6,6,10,1,RED,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC
|
||
N92/5; 3 TRIOS OF LIGHTS NR. HORIZON
|
||
140,9920214,655,PQ,VICTORIAVILLE,NL,4,5,10,2,RED,ROUND,I,NRC N92/6; ROUGE
|
||
GLOBES, EN LIGNE
|
||
141,9920224,2005,NB,LAKEVILLE,NL,3,5,.1,1,RED,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/7;
|
||
LIGHTS FLASHING ACROSS A FIELD
|
||
142,9920303,20,BC,FORT NELSON,ND,7,6,2,3,GREEN,CIGAR,U,NRC N92/8; HOVERING
|
||
OBJ. WITH LIGHTS; ZIG-ZAGGED
|
||
143,9920304,1935,MB,THOMPSON,NL,3,7,.02,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/9;
|
||
PILOT OBSERVED FIREBALL
|
||
144,9920306,2145,NS,DALHOUSIE,NL,7,6,4,1,ORANGE,,I,NRC N92/11;
|
||
GLOWING,STOPPED THEN 'BURST AWAY'
|
||
145,9920310,217,,,NL,6,7,2,3,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/12; PILOT&CREW
|
||
WITNESSES
|
||
146,9920311,1549,BC,,DD,7,5,1,3,,,I,NRC N92/13; SPINNING OBJECT WITH LIGHTS
|
||
147,9920314,0,,BUTTONVILLE,NL,3,6,.02,1,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/14;
|
||
PROB. BOLIDE
|
||
148,9920306,2240,MB,THOMPSON,C2,9,6,15,3,BLUE,,P,NRC N92/10/17; HAIRY
|
||
CREATURE W/RED EYES
|
||
150,9920402,118,MB,MCCREARY,C1,8,6,.05,2,RED,,U,NRC N92/20;ROUND RED
|
||
'BULBS' DISAPPEARED
|
||
151,9920402,2358,ON,THORNHILL,NL,4,6,2,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/21;
|
||
LIGHTS ZIG-ZAGGED
|
||
152,9920408,2200,NF,ST.JOHNS,NL,3,6,.15,1,,,P,NRC N92/22; FIREBALL W/SMOKE
|
||
TRAIL
|
||
153,9920411,346,MB,DAUPHIN,NL,6,6,5,1,RED,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/23;
|
||
'LATER' LIGHT ON ROAD AHEAD
|
||
154,9920414,800,ON,OTTAWA,NL,3,6,.03,1,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/24;
|
||
PROB. BOLIDE
|
||
155,9920419,2000,NF,COBB,ND,6,6,2,2,ORANGE,ROUND,I,NRC N92/25;
|
||
156,9920426,10,NT,FORT SMITH,NL,3,6,.05,1,BLUE,,P,NRC N92/26; PROBABLE
|
||
BOLIDE; 'STREAK'
|
||
157,9920427,1200,ON,MERRICKVILLE,DD,7,6,.02,1,RED,CIGAR,I,NRC N92/27;
|
||
TORPEDO-SHAPED, FLASHING FIRE ON SIDES
|
||
158,9920427,0,,,NL,3,6,.05,1,GREEN,,P,NRC N92/28; BLUE TRAIL
|
||
159,9920429,2210,MB,WINNIPEG,NL,4,6,.15,2,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/29;
|
||
GROUPS OF LIGHTS, NO SOUND
|
||
160,9920507,2230,SK,RADISSON,NL,4,6,3,1,RED,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/30;
|
||
FLASHING LIGHT NR. HORIZON
|
||
161,9920524,900,PQ,THURSO,NL,3,6,.02,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/31;
|
||
ROND AVEC TRAINEE
|
||
162,9920500,2245,ON,OTTAWA,ND,4,5,6,1,WHITE,,I,NRC N92/32; OBLONG LIGHTS
|
||
163,9920601,2150,ON,,C1,7,6,6,2,RED,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/33; 'POWER
|
||
INTERRUPTION' AS LIGHT WAS SEEN
|
||
164,9920601,100,ON,,ND,5,5,5,1,WHITE,,I,NRC N92/34; 20X SIZE OF SUN, NR.
|
||
HORIZON
|
||
165,9920611,2330,ON,CORNWALL,NL,3,6,.1,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/35;
|
||
FALLING LIGHT
|
||
166,9920615,148,BC,SURREY,ND,4,7,.04,2,ORANGE,ROUND,P,NRC N92/36; FALLING
|
||
BALL, BROKE IN PIECES IN AIR
|
||
167,9920615,2200,ON,BRACEBRIDGE,ND,4,7,.02,2,WHITE,ROUND,P,NRC N92/37;
|
||
ORANGE&BLUE TAIL, SIZE OF MOON
|
||
168,9920622,0,PQ,STE-SABINE,DD,7,5,1,1,,DISC,I,NRC N92/38; PHOTO&SKETCH OF
|
||
SAUCER
|
||
169,9920628,2155,PQ,TROIS-RIVIERES,NL,4,6,.02,1,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC
|
||
N92/40; PROBABLE BOLIDE
|
||
170,9920706,323,AB,TABER,C2,8,7,10,1,BLACK,DISC,U,NRC N92/41; SAUCER 20M
|
||
AWAY, UGMS FOUND LATER
|
||
171,9920706,2215,ON,OTTAWA,ND,6,6,5,1,,OVAL,P,NRC N92/42; MCDONALD'S BLIMP?
|
||
172,9920715,2150,ON,,NL,4,6,10,1,RED,,I,NRC N92/43 'LARGE COMET'
|
||
173,9920715,2120,BC,NELSON,NL,3,6,.02,1,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/44; 3X
|
||
SIZE OF EVENING STAR
|
||
174,9920717,2200,AB,FAIRVIEW,ND,8,8,30,50,SILVER,IRREGULAR,U,NRC N92/45;
|
||
NOT A BALLOON, RCMP WITNESSES AS WELL
|
||
175,9920722,2200,NB,ALLARDVILLE,DD,8,7,5,4,WHITE,TRIANGLE,U,NRC N92/46;
|
||
DRAWING OF UNUSUAL CRAFT
|
||
176,9920728,2140,NS,BIG BADDECK,ND,7,7,.3,2,YELLOW,IRREGULAR,U,NRC N92/47;
|
||
LIGHT W/ZIG-ZAG APPENDAGE
|
||
177,9920729,2302,NB,FREDERICTON,NL,3,6,.01,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC
|
||
N92/48; PROBABLE BOLIDE
|
||
178,9920730,2324,BC,MISSION,ND,7,6,.15,1,YELLOW,DISC,I,NRC N92/49; UPPER
|
||
PART W/8 LIGHTS, YELLOW ON LOWER
|
||
179,9920818,2001,BC,VANCOUVER,NL,3,6,.1,1,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/50;
|
||
PROBABLE BOLIDE
|
||
180,9920819,2300,AB,CALGARY,NL,6,6,3,1,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/51;
|
||
HUMMING SOUND
|
||
181,9920820,430,ON,,NL,6,6,30,1,,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/52; PILOT WITNESS
|
||
TO 15 LIGHTS IN ROWS
|
||
182,9920825,2320,ON,,ND,8,5,20,1,,DISC,I,NRC N92/53; 'UPSIDE DOWN SOUP
|
||
BOWL', HOVERING
|
||
183,9920831,310,PQ,MONTREAL,NL,6,5,20,1,,,I,NRC N92/54
|
||
184,9920907,2020,SK,LA RONGE,NL,3,7,.02,1,YELLOW,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/55;
|
||
PROBABLE BOLIDE
|
||
185,9920907,2040,SK,LA RONGE,NL,3,7,.03,1,YELLOW,POINT SOURCE,E,NRC N92/55;
|
||
'REAL PRETTY ONE', BOLIDE
|
||
186,9920913,905,,,NL,3,5,.1,1,ORANGE,,P,NRC N92/57; SMOKE TRAIL; BOLIDE
|
||
187,9920930,2300,PQ,HEMMINGFORD,DD,7,7,15,2,SILVER,TRIANGLE,U,NRC N92/58;
|
||
'OVNI A TRES GRANDE CIRCONFERENCE'
|
||
188,9921007,1905,ON,OTTAWA,NL,7,6,.4,1,,,I,NRC N92/59; 4 LIGHTS IN SQUARE,
|
||
MOVING
|
||
189,9921009,1855,ON,,NL,4,7,.3,2,WHITE,,P,NRC N92/60; SEEN FRM PLANE OVER
|
||
LAKE ERIE
|
||
190,9921009,1930,ON,TORONTO,NL,4,6,.2,2,,,P,NRC N92/61; LINEAR LIGHT SEEN
|
||
FRM APT.
|
||
191,9921013,2100,AB,HYTHE,NL,6,6,120,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,U,NRC N92/62;
|
||
STROBE LIGHT IN DENSE FOREST
|
||
192,9921028,2030,NS,,NL,6,6,1,1,,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/63; MANY LIGHTS
|
||
SEEN
|
||
193,9921105,2224,,,NL,3,5,.4,1,,,P,NRC N92/64; LEFT SMOKE TRAIL
|
||
194,9921108,1830,MB,LUNDAR,C2,8,7,.1,1,WHITE,,U,NRC N92/65; CAR STOPPED
|
||
WHEN 'SPARKLERS' APPEARED
|
||
195,9921111,1800,PQ,POINTE-AU-TREMBLES,ND,7,6,30,1,RED,,I,NRC N92/66; 3
|
||
LIGHTS BRIGHTER THEN DIMMER
|
||
196,9921119,130,,,NL,5,5,5,2,RED,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/67
|
||
197,9921120,632,ON,OTTAWA,NL,3,6,.03,1,GREEN,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/68;
|
||
PROBABLE BOLIDE
|
||
198,9921120,640,ON,NORTH BAY,NL,3,6,.02,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/70
|
||
199,9921121,2320,ON,OTTAWA,NL,6,6,15,2,YELLOW,POINT SOURCE,I,NRC N92/71;
|
||
FORMATIONS OF LIGHTS, HIGH ALTITUDE
|
||
200,9921127,2250,AB,FORT MCMURRAY,NL,5,6,1.5,2,RED,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC
|
||
N92/72; FLARE?
|
||
201,9921128,1930,AB,IRMA,NL,4,7,1,2,,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/73; PROBABLE
|
||
BOLIDE
|
||
202,9921205,2150,ON,,NL,4,5,10,1,BLUE,,I,NRC N92/74
|
||
203,9921208,743,ON,VERNON,NL,4,6,.2,1,BLUE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/75; PROB.
|
||
BOLIDE
|
||
204,9921208,745,ON,OTTAWA,NL,3,6,.03,1,,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/76
|
||
205,9921208,750,ON,,NL,4,5,.15,0,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,NRC N92/77
|
||
206,9921209,1745,ON,,NL,5,5,25,2,ORANGE,ROUND,I,NRC N92/78; STATIONARY
|
||
ROUND OBJ.
|
||
207,9921213,545,ON,,NL,3,7,.1,1,RED,,P,NRC N92/79
|
||
208,9921213,755,ON,,NL,5,5,20,1,BLACK,ROUND,I,NRC N92/80; ROUND OBJ. WITH
|
||
SMOKE TRAIL
|
||
209,9921225,1920,ON,,ND,7,7,2,3,WHITE,CIGAR,U,NRC N92/81; UNKNOWN OBJ. SEEN
|
||
FROM AIRCRAFT
|
||
210,9921225,1930,PQ,SALLUIT,NL,5,5,1,1,,,I,NRC N92/82
|
||
212,9920331,2230,MB,PINE RIVER,C2,7,7,.05,3,WHITE,,U,'DUST KICKED UP';
|
||
FLASH SEEN
|
||
213,9920300,2300,MB,WINNIPEG,NL,6,7,.1,2,WHITE,,P,6 LIGHTS IN ECHELON
|
||
FORMATION
|
||
214,9920509,1800,MB,WINNIPEG,DD,6,7,.05,1,SILVER,CIGAR,P,'LIKE PLANE GOING
|
||
DOWN'
|
||
215,9920600,2000,MB,WINNIPEG,NL,6,6,.15,1,WHITE,,P,6 LIGHTS IN DIAMOND
|
||
FORMATION
|
||
216,9920717,2300,MB,TYNDALL,NL,6,7,.05,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,P,FOUR BLUE
|
||
LIGHTS FOLLOWING A WHITE ONE
|
||
217,9920720,2358,MB,WINNIPEG,ND,7,8,.11,2,RED,DISC,U,PILOT SAW FORMATION OF
|
||
6 DISCS
|
||
218,9920721,2000,MB,WINNIPEG,ND,7,6,15,3,WHITE,OVAL,U,'ALUMINUM' OBJ. MOVED
|
||
SLOWLY IN ARC
|
||
219,9920721,2330,MB,WINNIPEG,ND,7,8,.2,2,WHITE,TRIANGLE,U,PILOT SAW 4
|
||
'DELTAS' IN V-FORMATION
|
||
220,9920722,2000,MB,WINNIPEG,DD,7,6,8,1,WHITE,DISC,U,'LIKE PIECE OF THE
|
||
MOON'
|
||
221,9920800,2000,MB,WINNIPEG,NL,6,3,1,1,RED,,I,LUMINOUS OBJECT
|
||
222,9920819,2255,MB,WINNIPEG,ND,5,7,1,1,WHITE,,P,VIDEO OF SLOW-MOVING LIGHT
|
||
NR. AIRPORT
|
||
223,9920912,2300,MB,WINNIPEG,NL,6,7,.1,1,WHITE,POINT SOURCE,U,13 DISCS IN
|
||
FORMATION SEEN BY PILOT
|
||
224,9921017,1800,MB,ASHERN,DD,8,7,1,1,BLACK,TRIANGLE,U,'MANTA RAY' FLYING
|
||
SLOWLY NEAR HOUSE
|
||
225,9921101,200,MB,WINNIPEG,C4,9,8,30,1,,,U,ABDUCTION REPORTED BY NURSE
|
||
226,9921103,1700,MB,WINNIPEG,NL,3,5,.2,1,ORANGE,POINT SOURCE,P,'FLARE
|
||
MOVING DOWN'
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
--
|
||
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
|
||
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
|