*****

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

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

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

+ +

++ ++

The 2006

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

Barb Campbell, Saskatchewan Provincial Paranormal Research Centre, Inc.

Peter Davenport, NUFORC

Don Ledger

Dave Pengilly, UFO*BC

Joe Trainor, UFO Roundup

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. Similar programs exist in Sweden, where UFO report data is analysed by the Archives for UFO Research, and in Italy by Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici.

2006 marks the seventeenth 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.

The most important findings of this study include the fact that the yearly number of reported UFO sightings in Canada remains high, and 2006 saw the third-highest number of sightings ever recorded.

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,

e-mail: canadianuforeport@hotmail.com

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 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 number of reported UFOs per year since 1989.

The number of UFO reports per year has varied annually, depending on a number of factors. However, yearly totals generally increased to a peak in 2004 and have remained at a plateau. The average number of UFO reports in Canada per year has been increasing since 1998. This clearly contradicts comments by those who would assert that UFOs are a passing fad or that the number of UFO sightings is decreasing.

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.

Data for each case was received by UFOROM from participating researchers across Canada. In addition, existing databases, web pages and other online sources of UFO sighting information were searched for Canadian reports that occurred in 2006. 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: 2006 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

Field 14 is the SOURCE of the report.

Field 15 is the EVALUATION of the case.

Field 16 includes any COMMENTS noted about the case.

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 2006 were Close Encounters, emphasizing the reality that 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, and has been adopted by many other groups worldwide.

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.

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 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, for example, was only 3.6, where 1 is considered not strange at all and 9 is considered exceptionally unusual. But in 2006, this value rose to 4.7, showing a significant shift towards unusual qualities in the reports, though 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 2006 was 5.2, similar to other years, 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. Since data for many cases are taken from websites and second-hand postings, or in fact self-postings, there is usually no significant investigation of UFO sightings. Well-investigated cases likely comprise only a small fraction of all UFO data, a fact that makes posted UFO case data have limited value.

Reliability and Strangeness ratings tend to vary in classic bell-shaped curves. In other words, there are very few cases which were both highly unusual and well-reported. Most cases are of medium strangeness and medium reliability. These are the high-quality unknowns which will be discussed in a later section of this study. However, there are also very few low-strangeness cases with low reliability. Low-strangeness cases, therefore, tend to be well-reported and probably have explanations.

In 2006, about 22 per cent of the total cases were obtained through the private and non-profit National UFO Reporting Center in the USA, which has a toll-free telephone number for reporting UFOs and a large sightings list created through voluntary submission of online report forms by witnesses. One can speculate that if there were a well-advertised toll-free number and accompanying website for reporting UFOs in each Canadian province, perhaps yearly report numbers would increase dramatically.

The Houston BC Centre for UFOs (HBCCUFO) had 21 per cent; it had a toll-free number for reporting UFOs in Canada for part of the year, closing in the fall. The drop in UFO report numbers in 2006 may have been partly due to this factor. Less than three per cent of the cases in 2006 came as a result of information obtained through Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence. As noted earlier, the Meteorites and Impacts Advisory Committee (MIAC) and the American Meteor Society (AMS) were not consulted for fireball reports in 2006.

It should be noted that the preparation of this Survey is becoming quite challenging. Few UFO investigators or researchers actually submit case data to UFOROM anymore, requiring considerable searching of online sources. And, although many sites post information about UFO sightings, very little actual UFO investigation is being conducted. In fact, it could be said that the science of UFO investigation has nearly become extinct. This does not bode well for an area of study that is under constant criticism by debunkers wishing to prove the unscientific nature of the subject.

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 2006, this was about 12 per cent. This is a relatively high figure, implying that almost one in eight 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 87 Unknowns out of 738 total cases in 2006. If we look only at the Unknowns with a Strangeness of 6 or greater and a Reliability rating of 7 or greater, we are left with 7 high-quality Unknowns in 2006 (about one per cent of the total). This is slightly lower than previous studies, where values closer to three or four per cent were noted. 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 87 Unknowns is that these cases were among the most challenging of all the reports received in 2006. 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.

The increase in the numbers of UFO reports with time likely does not have a simple explanation. It could be related to a growing awareness within the general population that there are agencies which collect UFO reports. It could be that there really are more UFOs physically present in the sky. It could be that the collection of UFO data is becoming more efficient. It could be that there are more private websites allowing or inviting people to report their UFO sightings. While media have been noted as playing a definite role in UFO waves (a national increase in UFO sightings), media coverage of UFO reports has significantly declined over the past decade while the number of reports has risen. Perhaps a cultural factor is at work as well, where aliens and UFOs are now well-entrenched within the societal mindset and are accepted as more probable than fiction. This question by itself is deserving of scientific study.

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

MUFON Ontario

HBCC UFO Research

UFO*BC

et al.

UFOROM (Ufology Research of Manitoba)

UFO Updates

UFO Roundup

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

e-mail: foxmulder@accesscable.net

Transport Canada

Department of National Defence

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

2006 5 10 Toronto ON NL 120 multi 1 round

6 7 HBCCUFO U Danced in sky, rotated, eventually departed at high rate of speed.

2006 11 12 2206 Gagetown PQ NL

6 7 DND U Pilot of Boeing 767 observed fast moving light cross in front of his aircraft. Tactical Collision Avoidance System was triggered by light.

2006 12 16 630 Fergus ON NL 120 silver 8 disk

6 7 AUFOSG U Witnesses observed first a ball rise up into air, maneuver around, leaving smoke trail. Disappeared. Appeared again. Searchlight like light.

2006 4 18 2245 Christina Lake ON ND 60 multi 4 disc

7 7 UFOinfo.com U Two couples observed disc skimming over a lake, increasing and lowering altitude, seemed to be internally lit, also a line of bright blue lights in marquee

2006 6 9 245 North Bay ON CE1 900 orb

7 7 DND U Man driving along highway saw three orbs perform various maneuvers, including flying right by car.

2006 8 19 2325 Brent's Cove NF ND 1200 2 V

7 7 Media U Hugh object hovering in air. 50 or more lights lit up temporarily. Then object rotated, and moved away.

2006 5 3 2245 Chilliwack BC ND 120 6 pyramid

8 7 UFO Evidence U Very large silent, dark object. Slow moving.