91 lines
4.4 KiB
Plaintext
91 lines
4.4 KiB
Plaintext
ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
============================================================================== |