Official Unknown UFO Report Percentages.

[Karl12]

Sometimes see UFO debunkers on cheesy TV shows claim that only 5% of UFO reports are worth looking into.

5% of what? One thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand, one million, ten million?

Granted lots of witnesses don't even report their UFO experience (I know I didn't) but when it comes to officially sanctioned government studies then it looks like the actual number is far more like a conservative 20%.

Will try to keep the info down to a minimum but below are some stats (and quotes) regarding government studies and true numbers of actual unknown unexplained rates.

First off is the largest scientific UFO study ever conducted by the US Government - looks like the Secretary of the USAF lied to the American public and claimed that the figure was just 3% (when in fact it was 21.5%).




• BLUEBOOK SPECIAL REPORT 14:

Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was a massive statistical analysis undertaken by the U.S. Air Force and the Battelle Memorial Institute to study UFO sightings. This report is significant as it represents the largest such study ever undertaken, with a total of 3,200 cases analyzed by the time the report was completed in 1954. The goal was to make the UFO study more scientific, and the approach involved devising a standardized reporting form and analyzing the existing sighting reports based on about 30 report characteristics.

• PBBSR14 - Full Report:

PDF File / Archive.Org



In the short video below Stanton Friedman exposes how the Secretary of the Air Force blatantly lied to the American public about Battelle Memorial Institute's BBsR14 actual unknown unexplained rate (21.5% out of 3201 cases) which found that 'the better the quality of the sighting report, the more likely it was unexplainable'; that 'UNKNOWNS were observed for longer than KNOWNS' and that less than 2% of reports fell in the hoax category.




See 0:45





• Chart:

Image




• USAF attempts to mislead the public on numbers.

This was a good report, but the Air Force deliberately tried to mislead the public. The report actually showed that 21.5% of the sightings were unknowns. However, the first page of the report contains the press release which stated that only 3% percent of the sightings were unknowns. (This only represented reports received in early 1955 and not reports in the actual study which covered 1947-1952.) The Air Force also tried to weight the report by removing astronomical phenomena from the study. This had an effect of showing that known and unknown sightings were more similar (using characteristics such as color, speed, number of objects, aerial maneuvers etc.) However, dropping astronomical phenomena didn't much difference in the outcome of the report, but it illustrates how the Air Force was trying to deceive the public. 

In other words the Air Force didn't appear to want the public to know the results of there own study of UFOs.

Bluebook Lies

• Relevant Quote:

• "The government has manipulated the results of scientific studies, such as the one done by Battelle, to show that they found nothing when in fact they did. In other cases it has set up panels that purported to scientifically examine the subject, but instead used them to debunk the phenomena, such as those of Robertson and Condon."

Battelle Researcher Dr. Irena Scott Ph.D.

Video

[Karl12]

• PROJECT BLUEBOOK:


Lots (and lots) of highly dubious USAF UFO debunks involved in Project Bluebook but here's former Chief Captain Ruppelt back in 1952 stating an unexplained rate of 25%.



IMAGE / LINK



Ruppelt's book can be found here and there's also this related stats table from NICAP's Fran Ridge which raises extremely serious questions about the way the USAF collated their 'statistics'.

Years later Bluebook's chief scientific consultant Dr J. Allen Hynek also stated that around 20 percent of Bluebook cases could not be explained and there's an entertaining vid below where he discusses similar patterns in global UFO reports as well as describing the USAF's 'Condon UFO study' (featured next) as a 'travesty on science'.




•Historic Film Stock: The Amazing World of Kreskin (1972-1975) Show No. 43.

See 2:30









To top that off it now also looks like that about 30 or 40 per cent of Bluebook cases may have been 'miscategorized' by the USAF as 'identified' and the true number of credible cases grossly underestimated - hardly surprising when you look at the almost criminal way many truly puzzling UFO incidents were 'explained away' by the U.S. Government and the fact that the Bluebook team from the 1960's went back and substituted official summary cards for unexplained cases 'to reduce the number of unknowns at any cost'.





• Researcher Brad Sparks on numbers:

• "Much more disturbing are the indications from my limited review of BB cases that there may be as many as possibly 4,000 Unexplained UFO cases miscategorized as IFO's in the BB files. McDonald similarly stated in 1968 at his CASI lecture that from his review of BB cases he estimated that 30-40% of 12,000 cases were Unexplained, or about 3,600 to 4,800. These are mostly military cases and many involve radar".

Comprehensive Catalog of 1,600 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns

• Researcher Kevin Randle on numbers:

• "There are many such cases in the Blue Book files. Cases in which the solutions are simply not borne out of the documentation available. Yet we continue to hear about only 701 unidentified cases when the number is probably closer to 5000 when the solutions are examined carefully and those labeled as insufficient data are included. Insufficient data is not a solution, but is a label other than unidentified".

Project Blue Book Declassified - Really?

• Researcher George Fawcett on numbers:

• "I have found there are real objects under intelligent control being seen on the ground and in our skies worldwide. The unknowns have varied over the decades from 22 percent in my own civilian files, 30 percent in the University of Colorda Condon Committee scientific studies, to at least 40 percent (recently revised) found in the U.S. Air Force Project Blue Book military investigations. This is not acceptable, no matter who is doing the investigations"

George Fawcett, UFO researcher (Ronald Story, Encyclopedia)

‘Curious George of UFOs’ devotes 40 years to study'

Quibbling about Bluebook figures might not matter much anyways as Bluebook Chief Colonel Robert Friend stated that during his tenure there were 'classified intelligence channels for reporting UFO's that completely bypassed Project Bluebook and documents exist which state that 'UFO reports that were a threat to national security weren't even part of the Bluebook system' (link).


Here's Stanton discussing how Dr Hynek was rather upset about it.

• ” I spoke with Bolender and it was clear that he understood the distinction between civilian reports and ones which could effect national security. Clearly the sightings of most interest are the ones that could effect national security. Blue Book wasn’t even on the distribution list for sightings reported under JANAP 146 or AF Manual 55-11. I well remember the frustration expressed by Blue Book Scientific consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek when I told him about the Bolender memo at a West Coast MUFON Symposium in 1979. He felt very used.

But if they weren’t part of Project Blue Book, where were the important cases documented? Why haven’t we been told about them? Why does the USAF always respond to queries about UFOs by referring to Blue Book and the fact that it was announced as being closed in December, 1969?

[Karl12]

• THE CONDON REPORT::



Good breakdown here for those interested and when it comes to USAF (and CIA) sponsored 'Condon Report' at the end of the 1960's then it looks like the corruption was off the charts.

Despite omitting some of the most puzzling cases on record the unexplained rate was still 30% (possibly 50%) and also worth pointing out the author never investigated even one case and wrote the summary whilst completely neglecting the contents of the report.

Stanford University astrophysicist Peter Sturrock also conducted some great work exposing the 'huge disconnection' between Condon’s conclusions and the actual reports of the scientists who conducted the research and how many of his final summaries were 'variously misleading, false or inaccurate'.












Some relevant quotes below and apologies for the large number but it really does look like this report was a complete and utter 'whitewash'.

• "You can actually buy the Condon Report, it's like the Kennedy assassination report, it's about 800 pages long, all the data is in there, much of it contradicting what Condon's final conclusion was. Eventually the report was released and at the time, a lot of people forget this, to large scale ridicule by the scientific community."

Researcher Paul Kimball.
Video






• "Specious argumentation, and argumentation of scientifically very weak nature, abound in the Report's case-analyses. And, while broadly charging bias on the part of those who have taken the UFO problem seriously in the past, the Report exhibits degrees of bias in the opposite direction that deserve the sharpest of criticism."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona.
Video






• "The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.. From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations.. the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means.. involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."

Ronald D. Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee - New York: Doubleday, 1980.
Link






• "If we read the report of the Condon Committee closely and ignore Dr. Condon’s conclusion, there is a strong argument for continued intense research.”

Dr. Michael Duggin, US Air Force Research Labs, Kirtland Air Force Base.
Link






• "The Condon report was a political and sociological response to the USAF’s UFO problem."

Professor Michael Swords -
Condon study review, CUFOS Journal of UFO Studies Volume 6, 1995/1996.
Link






• "The conclusions were drawn before the check was even signed, and Dr. Edward U. Condon, the chairman, knew what answers the Air Force wanted."

Researcher Kevin Randle.
Link






• "Ivan Sanderson knew Condon and the story was as you know that he was asked to do a 'job' or take the consequences of bring investigated for his past. Whatever the motivation he undoubtedly did a good job for his unseen masters."

Dr. Berthold Schwarz M.D.
Video






• "There was a man who played a very influential role in World War II deceptions, his name was Dr. R. V. Jones. Aside from being the MOD's Director of Scientific Intelligence he was a leading expert in the use of deception, his whole thing was 'how do you fool people?' and he would dream up very elaborate methods of hoodwinking people and steering them away from some things the military did not want people to know about.

Interestingly enough Jones evidently played an important behind the scenes role in planning for the University of Colorado's UFO study by Edward Condon and the Robertson Panel - I think this is a significant fact that has not got a lot of attention in the UFO community so far."

Researcher Terry Hansen.
Video






• "The trick would be to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study, but to the scientific community would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer."

Robert Low, Assistant Director of the Condon Committee (and former intelligence officer) - confidential 1966 memo suggesting the 'approach' of the Condon UFO study.

Link: 1 / 2 / Newsclipping

[Sirius]

21.5% isn't a good number

[Karl12]

21.5% isn't a good number

Just why is that mate?

Round it down to 21 if you like.

Any thoughts on the content?

If we switch to modern day it looks like Sean Kirkpatrick's AARO are still attempting to bullshit everyone about the specific findings of specific studies.

Hilarious.

The AARO report got my blood boiling again too. Hence the following screed from a quick read.

I noticed a number of obvious omissions from this cursory history and often disingenuous distortions of studies..

AARO did mention Project Blue Book Special Report #14 by the Battelle Memorial Institute, but disingenuously badly misrepresented the substance of the report, claiming: "It concluded that all cases that had enough data were resolved and readily explainable. The report assessed that if more data were available on cases marked unknown, most of those cases could be explained as well." This was simply a flagrant lie.

Also on the French space agency's UFO study.

They also did an extremely cursory examination of other country UFO investigations. They mentioned, e.g., the decades-long French investigation, but failed to mention it was done within the French space agency (CNES). Their summary is also highly misleading: "When it dissolved, SERPA [sic] concluded that the vast majority of cases possess ordinary explanations, while 28 percent of its caseload remained unresolved. None of these organizations have found evidence of extraterrestrial visitations to Earth."

In reality, of 1600 cases examined, only 42% were actually labeled identified (only 9% as definite, 33% as probable), thus NOT "the vast majority". 30% were labeled unidentified due to lack of sufficient information (junk cases), thus neither explained or unexplained, while the 28%, which they say "remained unresolved", were the unidentifieds that DID have sufficient information, and still did not have “ordinary explanations”. While the parent organization did not give an opinion as to the nature of the true UFOs, three of the directors publicly stated these were hard core cases which they believed couldn’t be explained (or ultimately “resolved”) and were most likely ET in origin.

Did like this bit:

Most mysterious of all, why are there all these government UFO studies all over the world if there is absolutely nothing to it? It sounds like many governments and militaries, including the U.S., were treating UFOs as something very important, worthy of repeated, serious and often secret study. Why no fairy or leprechaun studies? Maybe because they don't show up on radar, cameras, infrared and microwave sensors, cause EM interference including the jamming of radios and weapons systems, stall internal combustion engines, leave landing traces, cause spiked radiation readings and radiation poisoning, cause other physiological effects, intrude in sensitive military areas, especially those having to do with nukes, etc., etc.

That’s why the USAF used to have “UFO officers” at bases to order jet intercepts and write up reports, and not leprechaun officers. There is no equivalent Twining memo or AFR 200-2 saying leprechauns are real and are to be investigated for national security reasons and their technical aspects. Presidents dating back to at least Truman have been briefed on UFOs but not leprechauns.

David Rudiak and a Quick Response to AARO

There's also this piece by Mark von Rennenkampff on “The Hill” website:

AARO’s review misrepresents the most exhaustive, comprehensive historical analysis of UFO incidents, conducted on behalf of the Air Force by the Battelle Memorial Institute in the early 1950s. According to AARO, the resulting report found that “all cases that had enough data were resolved and explainable. But this is not what Battelle’s analysis found at all, and AARO’s misrepresentation of its conclusions speaks volumes. According to the Battelle analysis, as the quality of UFO reports improved, so too did the number with “unknown” explanations. Of the UFO cases considered “Excellent” and with sufficient data to draw a conclusion, 33 percent were categorized as having “unknown” origin.”

Apparently Kirkpatrick was a CIA asset from 2005-2010.

No surprise there then.

[Sirius]

Just why is that mate?

Round it down to 21 if you like.

Any thoughts on the content?

I think the number is probably higher, they always lie.

The content is terrifying as usual, you never bring good news.

[Karl12]

I think the number is probably higher, they always lie.

The content is terrifying as usual, you never bring good news.

Appreciate the compliment mate and suppose if a person (or populace) is being lied to about their own tax payer funded studies then it's definitely not good.

Reckon you're right about the number being higher and here's what the original chief of Bluebook had to say about the classification status of an actual unknown:

• "The identification of known objects was routine, and caused no excitement. The excitement and serious interest occurred when we received UFO reports in which the observer was reliable and the stimuli could not be identified.... Of the several thousand UFO reports that the Air Force has received since 1947 [through ~1957], some 15 to 20 percent fall into this category called unknown. This means that the observer was not affected by any determinable psychological quirks and that after exhaustive investigation the object that was reported could not be identified. To be classed as an unknown, a UFO report also had to be "good," meaning that it had to come from a competent observer and had to contain a reasonable amount of data.... [Any report lacking sufficient data, like the stereotypical distant-light-in-the-sky report], if it was received by Project Blue Book, was stamped "Insufficient Data for Evaluation" and dropped into the dead file, where it became a mere statistic."

USAF Captain Edward J. Ruppelt's "Report on Unidentified Flying Objects", pp.9-10

Apparently the French officials are finding around 28%.

• "Here you have the statistics now published on the official French website of the National Centre for Space Studies and what does it say? It says that about 28% of their UFO files are 'unknown' unidentified flying objects.

If we go back in time you had in the U.S. a very important study which was called 'Special Report 14' (PDF) by the Battelle Memorial Institute for Project Bluebook and they found a 25.5% 'unknown' rate so we are now finding these kinds of figures for the French files."

Gildas Bourdais on official French UFO research.
Video: 29:29

[Karl12]

they always lie.

Bravo for saying that mate and yes they treat people like 'child adults' in the West - especially when it comes to this subject.

Have been trying to find genuine official unexplained rates for other active official governmental studies in other countries (not easy).

South America seems to be far more open and honest with its citizens - here's what head of Chile's CEFAA had to say about other countries like Uruguay (CRIDOVNI).



Quote:

• "We believe the phenomena is the same all over the world, we have relations with investigators from 14 countries,” continued Bermúdez. In some cases—for instance Uruguay’s CRIDOVNI or France’s GEIPAN—this liaison is with CEFAA’s official counterparts. In countries where no such public official agency exists, the Committee maintains relations with private scientific organizations like Dr. Richard Haines’ NARCAAP in the U.S."

Chilean Air Force General Ricardo Bermúdez is the director of CEFAA (Committee of Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena), DGAC, Chile’s Civil Aviation Agency.

• Final Conclusions & Proposition

Conclusions about the UFO phenomenon reached by CEFAA.



• The Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon characterized as UFO is real and it is present inside and outside the Controlled Air Space.

• We do not know what it is and where it came from.

• It is necessary to continue studying the phenomenon.

• It is necessary to share all the information.

Link

Went down a bit of a rabbit hole on Chile and here's Rodrigo Bravo Garrido (Captain and Pilot for the BAVE - Aviation Brigade of the Chilean Army) explaining how many UFO reports on file are from military pilots describing objects that absolutely do not correspond to normal air traffic.

Rodrigo Bravo GARRIDO, Captain and Pilot for the Aviation Army of Chile. In 2000, he was assigned to conduct an internal study titled "Introduction to Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon and their considerations for aerospace security" involving previous case reports military planes encounters with UAP. For the last several years he has continued this research on recent and current cases affecting aviation safety in cooperation with the Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA), a branch of the General Administration of Civil Aeronautics, Chile's FAA.