78 lines
2.7 KiB
Plaintext
78 lines
2.7 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
The following is a listing of classifications / descriptions used in various
|
|
'ufo' texts and classification systems...
|
|
|
|
SIGHTING CLASSIFICATIONS
|
|
|
|
Below are the classifications of various types of UFO reports according to
|
|
proximity and activity. Suggested by J. Hynek & used by the Computer UFO
|
|
Network.
|
|
|
|
>LONG RANGE SIGHTINGS :farther than 500ft. distant from ufo:.
|
|
|
|
+LRS-DD: Daylight Disk
|
|
+LRS-NL: Nocturnal Lights
|
|
+LRS-RV: Radar & Visual
|
|
|
|
>CLOSE ENCOUNTERS :within 500ft from ufo:
|
|
|
|
+First Kind <CE-1>: Simple sighting of an object/ufo.
|
|
+Second Kind<CE-2>: Object interacts with the environment (including
|
|
electromagnetic effects, ground traces, radiation,
|
|
animal excitement.
|
|
+Third Kind <CE-3>: Witness sights occupants in or around UFO.
|
|
+Fourth Kind<CE-4>: Occupants communicate with witness in some way.
|
|
+Fifth Kind <CE-5>: Abduction of witness.
|
|
|
|
STRANGENESS AND PROBABILITY RATINGS
|
|
|
|
This is a 5 point rating system used by Paranet BBS's of the National
|
|
Fringe Sciences information Service to help establish the credibility of
|
|
sighting reports.These ratings are NOT used by CUFON, which does not
|
|
speculate.
|
|
|
|
*1. Explained or Explainable.
|
|
*2. Probably Explainable, with more data.
|
|
*3. Possibly Explainable, but with elements/ strangeness.
|
|
*4. Stange, does not conform with the norm.
|
|
*5. Highly strange, definately indicative of intelligent guidance.
|
|
|
|
EXAMPLES:
|
|
S1-Weather balloons, meteor, bolides, aircraft, etc..
|
|
S2-Experimental aircraft, celestial object(planet/star/).
|
|
S3-Slow, low flying object in formation.
|
|
S4-Bol (ball of light phenomena) physical traces.
|
|
S5-Close encounters,Abductions.
|
|
|
|
>PROBABILITY FACTOR/ #
|
|
Relates to the credibility, # & separation of witnesses and the
|
|
soundness of evidence.
|
|
|
|
*1-Not credible or sound.
|
|
*2-Unreliable, probably a hoax.
|
|
*3-Somewhat credible or indeterminate.
|
|
*4-Credible and sound.
|
|
*5-Highly credible, no doubt.
|
|
|
|
EXAMPLES:
|
|
*P1-Known hoaxer; photo hoax.
|
|
*P2-Repeat witness;conflicting testimony.
|
|
*P3-Standard,first time witness ;some radiation reading.
|
|
*P4-Multiple witnesses; pilot; good photo.
|
|
*P5-National figure, mutiple independent witnesses, videotape
|
|
|
|
Composite Stangeness/Probability Rating of a case involves of
|
|
the combined S/P factors.
|
|
|
|
EXAMPLES:
|
|
|
|
S1-Wickenburg, AZ; July 10
|
|
S2/P5-X-shaped UFO,Petaluma, CA
|
|
S4/P5-Brazillian ping pong ball
|
|
S5/P4-Betty & Barney Hill
|
|
S4/P4-Lubbock lights
|
|
S5/P5-Helicopter (Coyne case)
|
|
S3/P2-Delphos
|
|
|
|
|
|
|