CIA-UAP-015 — Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 (Analysis of Reports of Unidentified Aerial Objects)

File: CIA-UAP-015
Agency: CIA
Released in: Release 03 (2026-06-12)
File type: PDF

This is the USAF Project Blue Book with a CIA cover sheet stating the document is "Official Record Copy." With the exception of the handwritten note on the first page, the content of this document has been available on CIA's public website.

Open original file · WAR.GOV page

TL;DR

May 5 1955: the only Cinco de Mayo the CIA celebrated with spreadsheets.

CIA-UAP-015 PDF, CIA cover, authored by ATIC, Wright‑Patterson AFB, dated May 5 1955.
Analyzes 1947‑1952 UAP sightings, detailing coding, processing, and statistical trends.
Concludes low probability that unidentified objects represent unknown technological developments.

AI summary

This document is a CIA report titled "CIA-UAP-015, Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 (Analysis of Reports of Unidentified Aerial Objects)." It was authored by the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and dated May 5, 1955. The report analyzes data on unidentified aerial objects received by the U.S. Air Force since 1947. It details methods used to process and evaluate sighting reports, including coding systems and statistical analysis. The study concludes that there was a low probability that unidentified objects represented unknown technological developments, and it notes trends in identification rates over time. The data analyzed covers sightings up to the end of 1952.

Full text

Page 1

----~.~ ..:_:._~,. /

Approved fo..r: Release
2026 Under Section 1842 of the National Defen~5.e ,..,_
1
6 64 2250
•
Authorizati6n Ac -e' for Fiscal Year 2024
~
5'f.J _:

FORM

(PLACE FORM qgo HERE)

0 FFI C/IAL
RECORD
J

The,
Agenc.
in accc.
additior,
Records

.,.----------

RETURN IMMEDIATELY AFTER USE TO THE
CIA ARCHIVES AND RECORDS CENTER

_ .,-<,y-; ~ -- --<-4H~

~- _,.,/

Page 2

FORM
6-64

2250

(PLACE FORM ~90 HERE}

OFFICIAL
RECORD
COPY
J

WARNING
The attached document (s) must be safeguarded.

It is the

Agency's Official Historical Record and must be preserved
in accordance with the Federal Records Act of 1950.

For

additional information, call the Chief, CIA Archives and
Records Center, extension 2468.

RETURN IMMEDIATELY AFTER USE TO THE
CIA ARCHIVES AND RECORDS CENTER

Page 4

PROJECT BLUE BOOK

SPECIAL REPORT NO. 14

ii
il
1

I
I
I
I
:1

(ANALYSIS OF REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS)

PROJECT NO. 10073

5 MAY 1955

I
1

11
!

I
:I

FOR OffIC!Al USt ONlY
(AFR 190-16)

!1
I
I

I
I
I
_I

AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE GENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE

o:mo

No copyright materiel ls contained In this publication,

Page 5

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

SUMMARY.
INTRODUCTION
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DATA

REDUCTION OF DATA TO MECHANIZED COMPUTATION FORM

4
4

Questionnaire .
Coding System and Work Sheet
Identification of Working Papers.
Evaluation of Individual Reports

6
7
10

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.
Frequency and Percentage Distributions by Characteristics
Graphical Presentation .
Advanced Study of the Data
Position of the Sun Relative to the Observer
Statistical Chi Square Test
The "Flying Saucer" Model

16
16
16
60
76

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A. TABULATION OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE
DISTRIBUTIONS BY CHARACTERISTICS

APPENDIX B.

255

WORKING PAPER FORMS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure l

Frequency of Sightings by Year for Object, Unit, and All Sightings

Figure 2

Distribution of Evaluations of Object, Unit, and All Sightings for All Years

Figure 3

Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for All Years With Comparisons
of Each Year for Each Evaluation Group •

Figure 4

Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for All Years and Each Year

Figure 5

Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation Within Months for All Years

Figure 6

Distribution of Object Sightings by Certain and Doubtful Evaluations for
All Years and Each Year •

Frequency of Object Sightings and Unknown Object Evaluations by
Months, 1947-1952.

Distribution of Object Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups With
Evaluation Distributions for Each Group .

Distribution of Object Sightings Among the Four Sighting Reliability
Groups for All Years and Each Year .

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10 Distribution of All Sightings by Sighting Reliability Groups, Segregated
by Military and Civilian Observers, With Evaluation Distribution
for Each Segregation

Figure 11 Distribution of Object Sightings by Reported Colors of Object(s) With
Evaluation Distribution for Each Color Group •

Figure 12 Distribution of Object Sightings by Number of Objects Seen per Sighting
With Evaluation Distribution for Each Group

Figure 13 Distribution of Object Sightings by Duration of Sighting With Evaluation
Distribution for Each Duration Group .

iii

Page 6

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Continued)
Page
Figure 14 Distribution of Object Sightings by Months Among the Eight Duration
Groups for All Years

Figure 15 Distribution of Object Sightings by Shape of Object(s) Reported With
Evaluation Distribution for Each Shape Group ,

Figure 16 Distribution of Object Sightings by Reported Speed of Object(s) With
Evaluation Distribution for Each Speed Group .

Figure 17 Distribution of All Sightings by Observer Location for All Years and Each Year

Figure 18 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Color, 1947-1952

Figure 19 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Number of Objects
per Sighting, 1947-1952

Figure 20 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Speed, 1947-1952

Figure 21 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Duration, 1947-1952

Figure 22 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Shape, 1947-1952

Figure 23 Comparison of Known and Unknown Object Sightings by Light Brightness, 1947-1952

Figure 24 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Astronomical
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Astronomical.

Figure 25 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Aircraft
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Aircraft

Figure 26 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Balloon
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Balloon,

Figure 27 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Insufficient
Information Versus Total Object Sightings Less Insufficient Information

Figure 28 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Other
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Other

Figure 29 Comparison of Monthly Distribution of Object Sightings Evaluated as Unknown
Versus Total Object Sightings Less Unknown

Figure 30 Characteristics Profiles of Object Sightings by Total Sample, Known Evaluations,
and Individual Known Evaluations, With Unknown Evaluations Superimposed ,

Figure 31

Frequency of Object, Unit, and All Sightings Within the U. S., 1947-1952, by
Subdivisions of One Degree of Latitude and Longitude

I
I

I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
,-

Figure 32 Distribution of Object Sightings by Evaluation for the Twelve Regional Areas of
the U. S., With the Strategic Areas Located

Figure 33 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
Central East Region

Figure 34 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
Central Midwest Region

Figure 35 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
Central Farwest Region

Figure 36 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
South Midwest Region .

Figure 37 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
South West Region

I
I
I

I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I

Page 7

I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Continued)

Figure 38 Comparison of Evaluation of Object Sightings in the Strategic Areas of the
South Farwest Region .

Figure 39 Diagram of a Celestial Sphere.

Figure 40 Frequency of Object Sightings by Angle of Elevation of the Sun, Intervals
of 10 Degrees of Angle.

Figure 41 Frequency of Object Sightings by Local Sun Time, Intervals of One Hour

Table

Object Sightings

Table

II Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Color

Table

III Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Number

Table

IV Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Shape

Table

V Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Duration of Observation

Table

VI Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Speed

ti6

Table VII Chi Square Test of Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Light Brightness

Table VIII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Color

Table

IX Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Number.

Table

X Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Shape

Table

XI Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of
Duration of Ob~ervation

Table XII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Speed

Table XIII Chi Square Test of Revised Knowns Versus Unknowns on the Basis of Light Brightness.

I
I

I
I
I
I

v and vi

Page 8

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SUMMARY
Reports of unidentified aerial objects (popularly termed "flying
saucers" or "flying discs") have been received by the U.S. Air Force
since mid-1947 from' many and diverse sources. Although there was no
evidence that the ·unexplained reports of unidentified objects constituted
a threat to the security of the U.S., the Air Force determined that all
rep,orts of unidentified aerial objects should be fovestigated and evaluated
to d,etermine if "flying saucers". represented technological developments
not known to this country.
In order to discover any pertinent trend or pattern inherent in the
data, and to evaluate or explain any trend or pattern found, appropriate
methods of reducing these data from reports of unidentified aerial objects
to a form amenable to scientific' appraisal were employed. In general, the
original data upon which this study was based consisted of impressions and
interpretations of apparently unexplainable events, and seldom contained
reliable measurements of physical attributes. This subjectivity of the data
presented a 'major limitation to the drawing of significant conclusions, but
did not invalidate the application of scientific methods bf study.
The reports received by the U.S. Air Force on unidentified aerial
objects were reduced to IBM punched-card abstracts of the data by means
of logically developed forms and standardized evaluation procedures.
Evaluation of sighting reports, a crucial step in the preparation of the data
for statistical treatment, consisted of an appraisal of the reports and· the
subsequent categorization of the object or objects described in each report.
A detailed description of this phase of the study stresses the careful
attempt to maintain complete objectivity and consistency.
Analysis of the refined and evaluated data derived from the original
reports of sightings consisted of (I) a systematic attempt to ferret out any
distinguishing characteristics _inherent in the data of any of their segments,
(2) a concentrated study of any trend or pattern found, and (3) an attempt
to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observa.:.
tions of technological' developments not known to this country.
The first step in the 'analysis of the data revealed the existence of
certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified
.i.nd those not identified. Statistical methods of testing when applied indicated
a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant. An
attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represeri'ted
observations of technological developments not known to this country necessi
tated a thorough re-examination and re-evaluation of the cases of objects not
originally identified; this led to the conclusion that this probability was very
small.
The special study which resulted in this report (Analysis of Reports
of Unidentified Aerial Objects, 5 May 1955) started in 1953. To provide the
study group with a complete set of files, the informatio~ cut-off date was
established as of the end of 1952. It will accordingly be noted that the
statistics contained in all charts and tables in this report are terminated

vii
!I

Page 9

with the year 1952.

In these charts, 3201 cases have been used.

As the study progressed, a constant program was maintained for
the purpose of making comparisons between the current cases received
after I January 1953, and those being used for the report. This was done
in order that any change or significant trend which might arise from
current developments could be incorporated in the summary of this report.
The 1953 and 1954 cases show a general and expected trend of
increasing percentages in the finally identified categories. They also.show
decreasing percentages in categories where there was insufficient informa
tion and those where the phenomena could not be explained. This trend had
been:. anticipated in the light of improved reporting and investigating pro
ceduJ;"es.
Official reports on hand at the end of 1954 totaled 4834. Of these,
425 were produced in 1953 and 429 in 195'!. These 1953 and 1954 indi
vidual reports (a total of 854), were evaluated on the same basis as were
those received before the end of 1952. The results are as follows:
Balloons

- 16%

Aircraft

- 20%

Astronomical

- 25%

Other

- 13%
1 7%

Insufficient Info
Unknown

- 9%

As the study of the current cases progressed, it became increasingly
obvious that if reporting and investigating procedures could be further improved,
the percentages of those cases which contained insufficient information and
those remaining unexplained would be greatly reduced. The key to a higher
percentage of solutions appeared to be in rapid "on the spot" investigations
by trained personnel. On the basis of this, a revised program was established by AF Reg. 200-2 Subject: "Unidentified Flying Objects Reporting"
(Short Title: UFOB) dated 12 August 1954.
This new program, which had begun to show marked results before
January 1955, provided primarily that the 4602d Air Intelligence Service'
Squadron (Air Defense Command) would carry out all field investigations.
This squadron has sufficient units and is so deployed as to be able to arrive
"on the spot" within a very short time after a report is received. After
treatment by the 4602d AISS, all information is supplied to the Air Technical
Intelligence Center for final evaluation. This cooperative program has re
sulted, since 1 January 1955, in reducing the insufficient information cases
to 7o/o and the unknown cases to 3%, of the totals.
The period l January 1955 to 5 May 1955 accounted for 131 unidentified
aerial object reports received. Evaluation percentages of these are as follows:

viii

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Page 10

I
I
I

Balloons

- 26%

Aircraft

- 21%

Astronomical

- 23%

.....

I
,,

I
I
I
I
fi

I
r·

Other

20%

Insufficient Info -

Unknown

All available data were included in this study which was prepared by
a panel of scientists both in and out of the Air Force. On the basis of this
study it is believed that all the unidentified aerial objects could have been
explained if more complete observational data had been available. Insofar
as the reported aerial objects which still remain unexplained are concerned,
there exists little information other than the impressions and interpretations
of their observers. As these impressions and interpretations have been
replaced by the use of improved methods of investigation and reporting, and
,by scientific analysis, the number of unexplained cases has decreased rapidly
towards the vanishing point.
Therefore, on the b_asis of this evaluation of the information, it is
considered to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects
examined in this study represent observations of technological developments
outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge. It is emphasized
that there has been a complete lack of any valid evidence of physical 'matter
in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'

Page 11

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
·1

I
I
I

I
I
I
I

INTRODUCTION

In June, 1947, Kenneth Arnold, a Boise, Idaho, businessman and
private pilot, publicly reported the now-famous sighting of a chainlike
formation of disc-shaped objects near Mount Rainier, Washington. Result
ing newspaper publicity of this incident caught the public interest, and,
shortly thereafter, a rash of reports of unidentified aerial objects spawned
the term "flying saucers". During the years since 1947, many reports of
unidentified aerial objects have been received by the Air Force from many
and diverse sources.
The unfortunate term "flying saucer", or "flying disc", because of
its widespread and indiscriminate use, requires definition. Many defini
tions have been offered, one of the best being that originated by Dr. J.
Allen Hynek, Director of the Emerson McMillin Observatory of The Ohio
State University, who has taken a scientific interest in_the problem of
unidentified aerial objects since 1949. Dr. Hynek' s definition of the term
is "any aerial phenomenon or sighting that remains unexplained to the
viewer at least long enough for him to write a report about it 11 ( 1). Dr. Hynek,
elaborating on his definition, says, "Each flying saucer, so defined, has
associated with it a probable lifetime. It wanders in the field of public in
spection like an electron in a field of ions, until I captured' by an explana
tion which puts an end to its existence as a I flying saucer' 11 ( 1).
This definition would be applicable to any and all of the sightings
which remained unidentified throughout this study. However, the term
"flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel,
airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily ex
plainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the
Free World. This would include such items as natural phenomena that are
not yet completely understood, psychological phenomena, or intruder air
craft of a type that may be possessed by some source in large enough
numbers so that more than one independent mission may have been flown
and reported. Thus, these phenomena are of the type which should have
been observed and reported more than once.
Since 1947, public interest in the subject of unidentified aerial objects
fluctuated more or less within reasonable limits until the summer of 1952,
when the frequency of reports of sightings reached a peak, possibly stimu
lated by several articles on the subject in leading popular magazines.
Early in 1952, the Air Force's cumulative study and analysis of
reported sightings indicated that the majority of reports could be accounted
for as misinterpretations of known objects ( such as meteors, balloons, or
aircraft), a few as the result of mild hysteria, and a very few as the result
of unfamiliar meteorological phenomena and light aberrations. However,
(1) Hynek, J. A.• "Unusual Aerial Phenomena"• Journal of the Optical Society of America. 43 (4).
pp 311-314, April, 1953.

Page 12

a significant number of fairly complete reports by reliable observers re
mained unexplained. Although no evidence existed that unexplained reports
of sightings constituted_ a 1>hysical threat to the security of the U. S., in
March, 1952, the Air Force decided that all reports of unidentified
aerial objects should be investigated and evaluated to determine if "flying
saucers" represented technological developments not known to this country.
Originally, the problem involved the preparation and analysis of about
1,300 reports accumulated by the Air Force between 1947 and the end of
March, 1952. During the course of the work, the number of reports sub
mitted for analysis and evaluation more than tripled, the result of the un
precedented increase in observations during 1952. Accordingly, this study
is based on a number of reports considered to be large enough for a pre
liminary statistical analysis, approximately 4, 000 reports.
This study was undertaken primarily to categorize the available
reports of sightings and to determine the probability that any of the reports
of unidentified aerial objects represented observations of "flying saucers".
With full cognizance of the quality of the data available for study, yet with
an awareness of the proportions this subject has assumed at times in the
public mind, this work was undertaken with all the seriousness accorded
to a straightforward scientific investigation. In order to establish the
probability that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects represented
observations of "flying saucers", it was necessary to make an attempt to
answer the question "What is a 'flying saucer'?". However, it must be
emphasized that this was only incidental to the primary purpose of the
study, the determination of the probability that any of the reports of un
identified aerial objects represented observations of "flying saucers", as
defined on Page 1.
The basic technique for this study consisted of reducing the available
data to a form suitable for mechanical manipulation, a prerequisite for the
application of preliminary statistical methods .. One of International
Business Machine Corporation's systems was chosen as the best available
mechanical equipment.
The reduction of data contained in sighting reports into a form suit
able for transfer to IBM punched cards was extremely difficult and time
consuming.
For this study a panel of consultants was formed, consisting of both
experts within and outside A TIC. During the course of the work, guidance
and advice were received from the panel. The professional experience
available from the panel covered major scientific fields and numerous
specialized fields.
All records and working papers of this study have been carefully
preserved in an orderly fashion suitable for ready reference. These

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Page 13

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

records include condensations of all individual sighting reports, and the
IBM cards used in various phases of the study.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DA TA

Reports of sightings were received by the U. S. Air Force from a
representative cross section of the population of the U. S., and varied
widely in completeness and quality. Included were reports from reputable
scientists, housewives, farmers, students, and technically trained mem
bers of the Armed Forces. Reports varied in length from a few sentences
stating that a "flying saucer" had been sighted, to those containing thou
sands of words, including description, speculation, and advice on how to
handle the "problem of the I flying saucers 1 " . Some reports were of high
quality, conservative, and as complete as the observer could make them;
a few originated from people confined to mental institutions. A critical
examination of the reports revealed, however, that a high percentage of
them was submitted by serious people, mystified by what they had seen and
motivated by patriotic responsibility.
Three principal sources of reports were noted in the preliminary
review of the data. The bulk of the data arrived at A TIC through regular
military channels, from June, 1947, until the middle of 1952.
A second type of data consisted of letters reporting sightings sent by
civilian observers directly to A TIC. Most of these direct communications
were dated subsequent to April 30, 1952, and are believed to be the result
of a suggestion by a popular magazine that future reports be directed to the
Air Technical Intelligence Center. As could be expected, a large number
of letters was received following this publicity.
A third type of data was that contained in questionnaire forms com
pleted by the observer himself. A questionnaire form, developed during
the course of this study, was mailed by A TIC to a selected group of writers
of direct letters with the request that the form be completed and returned.
Approximately 1,000 responses were received by ATIC.
In general, the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates
of physical characteristics rather than of precise measurements. Further
more, most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately.
The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years.
Both of these factors introduced an element of doubt concerning the validity
o,f the original data, and increased its subjectivity. This was intensified by
the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, dis
tances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy. In
spite of these limitations, methods of statistical analysis of such reports m
sufficiently large groups are valid. The danger lies in the possibility of
3

Page 14

forgetting the subjectivity of the data at the time that conclusions are
drawn from the analysis. It must be emphasized, again and again, that any
conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what
many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be.
Altogether, the data for this study consisted of approximately 4, 000
reports of sightings of unidentified aerial objects. The majority were :re
ceived through military channels or in the form of observer-completed
questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from un
-questionably reliable sources. Sightings made between June, 1947, and
December, 1952, were considered for this study. Sightings alleged to have
occurred prior to 1947 were not considered, since they were not reported
to official sources until after public interest in "flying saucers" had been
stimulated by the popular press.

I
I
I
I
I
I

The plan for reduction of the data to usable form consisted of a pro
gram of development comprising four major steps: ( 1) a systematic listing
of the factors necessary to evaluate the observer and his report, and to
identify the unknown object observed; (2) a standard scheme for the trans
fer of data to a mechanized computation system; (3) an orderly means of
relating the original data to_ all subsequent forms; and ( 4} a consistent pro
cedure for the identification of the phenomenon described by the original
data.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Questionnaire

REDUCTION OF DA TA TO MECHANIZED COMPUTATION FORM

As received by the Air Technical Intelligence Center, the sighting
reports were not in a form suitable for even a quasi-scientific study. A
preliminary review of the data indicated the need for standardized interro
gation procedures and supplemental forms for the reduction of currently
held and subsequently acquired data to a form amenable to scientific
appraisal.

The first reports received by A TIC varied widely in completeness
and quality. Air Force Letter 200-5(2} and Air Force Form 112( 1) were
attempts to fix responsibility for and improve the quality of the reports of
sightings. To coordinate past efforts and to provide standardization for the
(1) A modified Air Force Form 112 lists pertinent questions to be answered in regard to an unidentified-object
sighting.
(2) Air Force Letter 200-5 places responsibility with the Air Force for the investigation, reporting, and
analysis of unidentified aerial objects. This letter is dated 29 April 1952.

I
I
I
I

I
I

Page 15

I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I

I
I
I
I

I
I
I

future, it was imperative to develop a questionnaire form listing the factors
necessary for evaluation of the observer and his report, and identification
of the unknown objects. In addition, it was decided that such a questionnaire
should be designed to serve as an interrogator's guide, and as a form for
the observer himself to complete when personal interrogation was not possi
ble or practicable.
Ideally, a questionnaire for the purposes required should contain
questions pertaining to all technical details considered to be essential for
the statistical approach, and should serve to obtain a maximum of informa
tion from the average individual who had made a sighting in the past or
would be likely to be reporting sightings in the future. Besides these ~is
crete facts, an integrated written description of a sighting would be re
quired, thus enabling the reported facts of the sighting to be corroborated.
Also, a narrative description might allow subtle questions to be answered
concerning the observer's ability, such as indirect questions that would
reveal his reasoning ability, suggestibility, and general mental attitude.
As a whole, then, the information contained in a questionnaire should make
possible the classification and evaluation of the sighting, the rating of the
observer, the probability of accuracy of reported facts, and the identifica
tion of what was reported by the observer as unidentified.
During the course of this project, three questionnaire forms were
developed, each intended to be an improved revision of the one preceding.
The improvements were suggested and confirmed by members of the panel
of consultants connected with this project.
The original form was evolved by the panel of consultants as their
first work on this project. It was intended to allow the start of the reduc
tion of reports to discrete data, and was immediately subjected to exten
sive review and revision by the panel. The revised ( second) form was
subjected to a trial test before adoption. A TIC sent a copy to observers
reporting sightings, with the request that the form be completed and re
turned. Of the first 300 questionnaires returned during July and August,
1952, 168 were analyzed by a consulting psychologist. On the basis of this
analysis, plus the experience gained in working with past reports, the final
form of the questionnaire - the U. S. Air Force Technical Information
Sheet - was evolved. Copies of the three forms of the questionnaire, in
the order of their development, are shown as Exhibits BI, B2, and B3 in
Appendix B.
In order to implement the transcription of data from past sighting
reports, each succeeding form was put to use as soon as it was developed
and approved. Accordingly, experience was obtained with each form in
relation to past data, an important factor in the improvement of the quality
and completeness of the later reports included in this study.

Page 16

Coding System and Work Sheet

The reduction of non-numerical data to numerical form is mandatory
in the machine handling of data. Thus, the selection of the IBM punched
card system for analysis of data forced the adoption of a master coding
plan. Since it was impracticable to transfer detailed data of a~ exact
nature from the questionnaire to the IBM card, an intermediate transfer
form, coordinated with the master code, was necessary.
The master coding plan was evolved during the early stages of the
preli~inary analysis of data, and was reviewed by the panel of consultants
before use. It was recognized that this system of coding would be the
heart of the analysis, that is, the completeness of the facility for trans
lation of data could make or break the study.

Text continues in the original file (312 pages).

Previous: CIA-UAP-014 — British activity in the Field of "Unidentified Flying Objects" · Next: CIA-UAP-016 — Sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects in Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan

CIA-UAP-015 — Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 (Analysis of Reports of Unidentified Aerial Objects)

TL;DR

AI summary

Full text

Page 1

Page 2

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Same topic: title & summary match

Same release: Release 03

Same agency: CIA