*****

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

/ .................. \

=========================

+ +

++ ++

The 2003

CANADIAN UFO SURVEY:

an analysis of UFO reports

in Canada

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Compiled by

Geoff Dittman

and

Chris A. Rutkowski

Errol Bruce-Knapp, MUFON Ontario and UFO Updates

Sue Darroch, Para-Researchers of Ontario

Peter Davenport, NUFORC

Michel Deschamps, MUFON Ontario, Sudbury

Stanton Friedman, Fredericton, New Brunswick

Anita Goodrich, Hauntings Research Group (Ontario)

Hans Grasholm, UFO*BC (Yukon)

Martin Jasek, UFO*BC (Vancouver)

Stephanie Lechniak, Haunted Hamilton

Don Ledger, UFO Nova Scotia

Dave Pengilly, UFO*BC

Jacques Poulet, CHUCARA, Quebec

Joe Trainor, UFO Roundup

Elliott Van Dusen, Paranormal Phenomena Research & Investigation

Brian Vike, HBCCUFO

Editor

Chris Rutkowski, UFOROM

Data Entry, Compilation and Analyses

Geoff Dittman, UFOROM

Published by

Ufology Research of Manitoba

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Since 1989, UFOROM has been soliciting UFO case data from all known and active investigators and researchers in Canada. Our goal has been to provide data for use by researchers as they try to understand this controversial phenomenon. No comparable studies are currently produced by any other research group in North America. The only known similar program is one in Sweden, where UFO report data is analysed by the Archives for UFO Research. They have lists of Swedish UFO sightings from 1997 to the present online. 2003 thus marks our fifteenth year of collecting and analysing Canadian UFO report data. UFOROM presently has UFO data from 1993 to the present available online, and is working to add earlier national case data to the database.

Popular opinion to the contrary, there is yet to be any incontrovertible evidence that some UFO cases involve extraterrestrial contact. The continued reporting of UFOs by the public and the yearly increase in numbers of UFO reports suggests a need for further examination of the phenomenon by social, medical and/or physical scientists.

Ufology Research of Manitoba,

This last point cannot be overemphasized. The UFO reports collected and analysed in our annual Surveys are the only data upon which studies of Canadian UFOs can be reasonably based. As UFOs are a worldwide phenomenon, the results of analyses of Canadian UFO reports can easily be applied to cases in other countries. In effect, this is the empirical data for research in this field. If one wants to know what people really are seeing in the skies, the answer lies within these reports.

This practice ceased as a result of budgetary restrictions, lowered prioritization of meteoric research and the perceived reduction in importance of UFO data. However, included among the NRC reports were many observations of meteors and fireballs, and these have been added into the UFOROM database since 1989. For several years, the collection of such reports was in an effective hiatus, but in 2000, an arrangement facilitated that UFO sightings reported to Transport Canada could then be referred to UFOROM for research into the phenomenon. This does not mean that UFOROM receives all official government or military UFO reports. UFO sightings reported to the RCMP, for example, will normally get sent only to RCMP Divisional Headqaurters.

Another reason why UFO data should be collected and studied is found in official directives of the Department of National Defence regarding the actions of all pilots in Canadian airspace. In documents relating to CIRVIS (Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings), both civilians and military personnel are instructed that:

In other words, it is considered in the best interests of everyone to report UFO sightings, and certainly of interest to the Department of National Defence. The annual Canadian UFO Survey looks critically at UFO sightings and assesses their nature.

For the purposes of this and other scientific studies of UFO data, UFO sightings which have been made to recognized contributing and participating groups, associations, organizations or individuals (for a list of contributors see page 2 of this report) are considered officially reported and valid as data in this study. The collection of Canadian UFO data is challenging. However, the data obtained for analysis yields results that can be compared with other studies. This is useful in understanding the nature of UFO reports not only in Canada, but can shed light on the nature of UFO reports elsewhere in the world.

The following table shows the numbers of reported UFOs per year since 1989.

Still, we must recognize that yearly figures are greatly dependent on many factors, especially the cooperation of contributors to the annual survey. The large number of UFO reports in 1993 was almost entirely due to a single major fireball event which spawned reports by hundreds of independent observers across the country. Similarly, the dramatic increase in UFO reports for 2003 is partly due to a single major event on July 28, 2003, in the Okanagan Valley, in which literally hundreds of people observed and reported seeing a band of white light arching across the sky. This spectacular sight was certainly not a fireball but may still eventually have a conventional explanation. There is no question that something was seen, due to the large number of witnesses reporting it over a very wide area. Nevertheless, the 2003 data represents the largest number of UFO reports ever recorded in a single year in the 15-year history of the annual Canadian UFO Survey.

For this study, the working definition of a UFO is an object seen in the sky which its observer cannot identify.

Studies of UFO data routinely include reports of meteors, fireballs and other conventional objects. In many instances, observers fail to recognize stars, aircraft and bolides, and therefore report them as UFOs. Witnesses often report watching stationary flashing lights low on the horizon for hours and never conclude they are observing a star or planet.

Some UFO investigators spend many hours sorting IFOs from UFOs. Historically, analyses of UFO data such as the American projects Grudge, Sign and Blue Book all included raw UFO data which later were resolved into categories of UFOs and IFOs. Sometimes, observed objects are quickly assigned a particular IFO explanation even though later investigation suggests such an explanation was unwarranted. The reverse is also true.

The IFO question became more significant in 2003 as many more fireball and meteor reports than usual were added as data from astronomical sources. Brilliant fireballs have always been included within UFO data, especially the American military studies, and have been included in the UFOROM annual studies as a matter of course and to allow better comparisons with historical studies. As fireball reporting networks become more efficient, however, the number of IFOs in the UFO database increases dramatically. Many fireballs are reported as UFOs and are thus justifiably included in the UFO database. Others that are reported as fireballs and bolides might not be considered appropriate for inclusion, and this problem should be addressed in later analyses.

Data for each case was received by UFOROM from participating researchers across Canada. The information then was coded by members of UFOROM and entered into a Microsoft Excel database and statistically analysed.

An example of the coding key is as follows:

Example: 2003 01 09 1530 Vernon BC DD 900 silver 2 ps 6 5 UFOBC p four objs. seen

Field: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

In addition, the geographical names of UFO sighting locations were examined for trends. Many cities were found to have multiple reports, and these are noted in the following table. Large metropolitan areas include their suburbs.

Less than 3 per cent of all reported UFO cases in 2003 were Close Encounters. Very, very few UFO cases involve anything other than distant objects seen in the sky. This is an important statistic, because the current popular interest in abductions and sensational UFO encounters is based not on the vast majority of UFO cases but on the very tiny fraction of cases which fall into the category of close encounters. The endless speculation of what aliens may or may not be doing in our airspace seems almost completely unconnected to what are actually being reported as UFOs.

For those unfamiliar with the classifications, a summary follows:

Note: The category of Nocturnal Disc was created in the 1980s by UFOROM originally for differentiation of cases within its own report files.

The hourly distribution of cases has usually followed a similar pattern every year, with a peak at 2200 hours local and a trough around 1000 hours local. In 2002, there was an unexpected slight shift in the peak from 2200 to 2300 hours, and a shift in the trough from 1000 to noon. In 2003, the peak is again at 2300 hours, but the trough has shifted earlier than before, to 0900.

Since most UFOs are nocturnal lights, most sightings will occur during the evening hours. Since the number of possible observers drops off sharply near midnight, we would expect the hourly rate of UFO reports would vary with two factors: potential observers and darkness.

The category of Duration is interesting in that it represents the subjective length of time the UFO experience lasted. In other words, this is the length of time the sighting lasted as estimated by the witness. Naturally, these times are greatly suspect because it is known that people tend to badly misjudge the flow of time. However, some people can be good at estimating time, so this value has some importance. Although an estimate of "one hour" may be in error by several minutes, it is unlikely that the true duration would be, for example, one minute. Furthermore, there have been cases when a UFO was observed and clocked very 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 the sum of all given durations divided by the number of cases with a stated duration. This value has varied somewhat, from seven minutes in 1994 to 25 minutes in 1996. In 2002, the average duration of all cases was 920 seconds, or about 15 minutes, but this duration fell significantly in 2003 to 613 seconds, or about 10 minutes. This drop is probably due to the increase in very short duration meteor/fireball reports.

Previous analyses have shown that long-duration sightings tend to occur in the early morning hours, from about midnight until 6:00 a.m. It is probable that the majority of these observations are of astronomical objects, moving slowly with the rotation of the Earth.

The duration of a sighting is one of the biggest clues to its explanation. Experience in studying UFO reports has shown us that short duration events are usually fireballs or bolides, and long duration events of an hour or more are very probably astronomical objects. In between, there can be no way to distinguish conventional objects from UFOs solely with Duration data. One study by an Ontario UFO group which timed aircraft observations found that the duration of such sightings varied between 15 seconds to more than eight minutes. Therefore, sightings with durations in this range could very well be aircraft, providing other observational data do not contradict such an explanation.

The average number of witnesses per case between 1989 and 2002 is approximately 2.00. This value has fluctuated between a high of 2.4 in 1996 to as low as 1.4 in 1990. In 2003, the average number of witnesses per case was 2.04.

This indicates that the typical UFO experience has more than one witness, and supports the contention that UFO sightings represent observations of real, physical phenomena, since there is usually a corroborator present to support the sighting.

The assigning of a Strangeness rating to a UFO report is based on a classification adopted by researchers who noted that the inclusion of a subjective evaluation of the degree to which a particular case is in itself unusual might yield some insight into the data. For example, the observation of a single, stationary, starlike light in the sky, seen for several hours, is not particularly unusual and might likely have a prosaic explanation such as that of a star or planet. On the other hand, a detailed observation of a saucer-shaped object which glides slowly away from a witness after an encounter with grey-skinned aliens would be considered highly strange.

The numbers of UFO reports according to strangeness rating show an inverse relationship such that the higher the strangeness rating, the fewer reports. The one exception to this relationship occurs in the case of very low strangeness cases, which are relatively few in number compared to those of moderate strangeness. It is suggested this is the case because in order for an observation to be considered a UFO, it must usually rise above an ad hoc level of strangeness, otherwise it would not be considered strange at all.

The average strangeness rating for UFO reports during 2003 was 3.6, unchanged from 2002, where 1 is considered not strange at all and 9 is considered exceptionally unusual. Therefore, most UFOs reported are of objects which do not greatly stretch the imagination. Hollywood-style flying saucers are, in reality, relatively uncommon in UFO reports.

The average Reliability rating of Canadian UFO reports in 2003 was 5.39, similar to 2002, indicating that there were approximately the same number of higher quality cases as those of low quality. Low reliability was assigned to reports with minimal information on the witness, little or no investigation and incomplete data or description of the object(s) observed. Higher reliability cases might include actual interviews with witnesses, a detailed case investigation, multiple witnesses, supporting documentation and other evidence.

UFO data used in this study were supplied by many different groups, organizations, official agencies and private individuals. Since this annual survey began in the late 1980s, more and more cases have been obtained and received via the Internet.

A little less than four per cent of the cases in 2003 came as a result of information obtained through Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence.

The breakdown by Evaluation for 2003 cases was similar to results from previous years. There were four operative categories: Explained, Insufficient Information, Possible or Probable Explanation, and Unknown (or Unexplained). It is important to note that a classification of Unknown does not imply that an alien spacecraft or mysterious natural phenomenon was observed; no such interpretation can be made with certainty, based solely on the given data (though the probability of this scenario is technically never zero).

In most cases, an Evaluation is made subjectively by both the contributing investigators and the compilers of this study. The category of Unknown is adopted if the contributed data or case report contains enough information such 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. Cases are also re-evaluated periodically as additional data or information is brought to attention or obtained through further investigation.

Since 1989, the average proportion of Unknowns has been about 13 per cent per year. In 2003, this was about 17 per cent. This is a relatively high figure, implying that almost one in six UFOs cannot be explained. However, there are several factors which affect this value.

During the first few years of these studies, an evaluation of Explained was almost nonexistent. At first, contributors tended to ignore UFO sightings that had a simple explanation and deleted them as actual UFO data. Hence, the only UFO reports submitted by contributors tended to be high-strangeness cases. Contributors were then encouraged to submit data on all UFO reports they received, so that a more uniform assessment and evaluation process could be realized. Because many IFO cases such as fireballs and meteors are initially reported as UFOs, the Explained category was considered necessary for a full review of UFO data. As noted previously, early American studies of UFO data included such cases, so present-day comparative studies should include such data as well. Furthermore, since there are no absolutes, the subjective nature of assigning Evaluations is actually an interpretation of the facts by individual researchers.

The process of evaluating UFO sightings is often complex, involving a series of steps that take into account errors of observation and unpredictable but natural phenomena. Checks with star charts, police, air traffic control operators and meteorologists are often performed. Where possible, witnesses are interviewed in person, and sketches or photographs of the area may be examined. The intent is to eliminate as many conventional explanations as possible before allowing an evaluation or conclusion.

There were 111 Unknowns out of 673 total cases in 2003. If we look only at the Unknowns with a Reliability rating of 7 or greater, we are left with 28 high-quality Unknowns in 2003 (about four per cent of the total). This is in agreement with previous studies. As a comparison, USAF Blue Book studies found three to four per cent of their cases were "excellent" Unknowns.

It should be emphasized again that even high-quality Unknowns do not imply alien visitation. Each case may still have an explanation following further investigation. And of those that remain unexplained, they may remain unexplained, but still are not incontrovertible proof of extraterrestrial intervention or some mysterious natural phenomenon.

The typical UFO sighting is that of two people together observing a moving, distant white or red light for several minutes. In most cases, the UFO is likely to be eventually identified as a conventional object such as an aircraft or astronomical object. However, in a small percentage of cases, some UFOs do not appear to have an easy explanation and may be given the label of "unknown."

All that a study of this kind can do is present the data and some rudimentary analyses. The recognition that there really are only a handful of higher-quality unknowns among the mass of UFO cases might lead a debunker to believe they, too, might find an explanation if enough effort were to be expended, but to a believer this might be the required proof that some UFOs have no explanations.

The Evaluation 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 interpretation of the 111 Unknowns is that these cases were among the most challenging of all the reports received in 2003. It should be noted that most 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 list of Unknowns. And, above all, these cases are not proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

Since 1989, rate of UFO reporting in Canada has been an average of 20 cases per month, although this has been increasing during the past five years. In 2002, the monthly rate was 40 per month, or at least one UFO sighting each day somewhere in Canada. The rate jumped significantly again in 2003, to more than 50 sightings per month.

UFO witnesses range from farmhands to airline pilots and from teachers to police officers. 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 that only continued and rational research can answer, and only if researchers have the support and encouragement of both scientists and the public.

AUFOSG (Alberta UFO Study Group)

National UFO Reporting Center

UFO Nova Scotia

MUFON Ontario

HBCC UFO Research

UFO*BC

et al.

UFOROM (Ufology Research of Manitoba)

CHUCARA

Box 61

La Prairie, Quebec J5R 3Y1

UFO Updates

UFO Roundup

Para-Researchers of Ontario

Haunted Hamilton

Hauntings Research Group (Ontario)

Paranormal Phenomena Research & Investigation (PPRI) (Nova Scotia)

Newfoundland UFO Research (NUFOR)

Newfoundland UFOs

UFO Yukon Research Society

Transport Canada

Department of National Defence

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

A dark triangular craft with some sort of structured undercarriage was seen to fly silently over the city. It was in view for three minutes by two witnesses.

A witness watched a gray, teardrop-shaped object moving slowly at low altitude over rooftops, making an unusual whirring sound.

A large fuselage-shaped object flew low along a road, under some guy wires, and among trees.

A triangular object with red lights flew over a pair of witnesses.

An unusual white, oval object with a ring of blue lights hovered overtop a house, dropping sparks, then flew steadily towards the mountains and was lost to sight.

The fact that hundreds of witnesses reported the two events is testament that something physically real was observed. In some cases, both objects were reported by the same observers.

The possibility of an astronomical cause was first considered, but this does not seem a viable explanation. If the arch was a meteor train, its hour-long persistence would be highly unlikely, especially one as bright as reported. As it turns out, there was a bright bolide reported near Omak, Washington, at 12:27 am on July 28, 2003, fragmenting as it flew in the northwest sky. It lasted for two seconds. Although its location and direction would place it in the right area, it is very odd that none of the hundreds of witnesses of the arch reported seeing such a bright fireball.

Another factor that could be involved in the arch is the fire situation in the BC interior about that time. Forest fires ravaged much of the Okanagan Valley during the summer, especially where the arch was seen. This seems more than a coincidence. It is quite possible that the first object could have been, perhaps, a water bomber or a related fire fighting aircraft. As for the arch itself, one can speculate that light from the fires reflected off their own clouds of smoke. One problem with this suggestion is that witnesses of the arch described it as brilliant white, whereas reflected fire light would likely be more red or orange in colour.

An astronomer at Penticton Observatory was asked to comment on the arch, and he noted:

My recollection is that the fires had started before then so their effects are certainly something to consider. On the other hand, this summer I became aware of a phenomenon known as the 'Okanagan Arch', a whitish band which crosses the sky, similar in form to an aurora but not an aurora colour, persists for hours, is seen in the Okanagan from time to time, and nobody knows what it is, in particular nobody at the observatory. One of these was reported in mid-August, and the descriptions for July 28 sound very similar.

Where does this leave us? A persistent aerial phenomenon that is not astronomical could therefore be atmospheric in nature. Noctilucent clouds, perhaps? But why suddenly, for an entire hour, so geometrically perfect and so long after sunset?

Earthquake lights? Yet the description does not match most EQL reports. Further, the arch did not precede or follow any significant seismic activity in the region. There was a minor 3.2 M earthquake on August 12, 59 km west of Kelowna, but it would be difficult to connect such a low-energy event with such a phenomenal aerial display, especially since stronger events in the same area did not generate such arches. For example, a much stronger 4.6 M earthquake in Wyoming on August 21 has not been associated with any luminous aerial displays.

Unfortunately, we are left with many reports of a well-witnessed luminous aerial phenomenon with no explanation.