25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 1 UFOs Over Canada: 25 Years of UFO Reports By Geoff Dittman and Chris Rutkowski, with assistance from Ashley Kircher Ufology Research July 2014 Overview Since 1989, details about UFO reports in Canada have been solicited from all known and active investigators and researchers in this country for analyses and comparison with other compilations.
Before that time, individual researchers usually maintained their own files with little or no communication to others. Even today, it is known that some representatives of major UFO organizations often do not regularly share or share case data, and the parent organizations themselves tend not to do much analyses with the data they do receive, although this is changing. Recently, however, MUFON finally has been publishing results from analyses of UFO data it has collected, and this has been useful in comparisons with other data sets (Spencer, 1993).
After favourable responses from the publication of its previous Canadian UFO Surveys, the former Ufology Research of Manitoba (now Ufology Research) decided to continue the systematic collection of raw UFO report data in Canada and prepare yearly reports for general circulation. It was believed that the dissemination of such data would be of great advantage to researchers in the hope of better understanding the UFO phenomenon.
This is not to suggest that statistical studies of UFO data are without their limitations and problems. Allan Hendry, in his landmark book The UFO Handbook, pointed out flaws in such studies and asked: … do UFO statistics represent a valid pursuit for more knowledge about this elusive phenomenon, or do they merely reflect frustration that none of the individual reports are capable of standing on their own two feet? (1979, p. 269) Hendry offered six questions to ask of statistical ufology: 1)
Does the report collection reflect truly random sampling? 2) Have the individual cases been adequately validated? 3) Are apples and oranges being compared? Are NLs necessarily the same kind of UFO as DDs? 4) Are differing details among cases obscured through simplification for the purpose of comparisons? 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 2 5) Does the study imply the question: “Surely this mass of data proves UFOs exist?” 6) Do the correlations really show causality? The Canadian UFO Survey was undertaken with these and other critical comments in mind.
The Collection of Canadian UFO Data Many individuals, associations, clubs and groups claim to investigate UFO reports or and otherwise solicit reports from the general public. However, very few of them actually participate in any kind of information sharing or data gathering for scientific programs. Many are only interest groups, perhaps based in museums, planetariums, church basements or members’ homes, and do virtually nothing with the case reports they receive.
Indeed, because there is no way to enforce standards in UFO report investigations, the quality of case investigations varies considerably. Some researchers do not maintain useable case files and do not retain quantitative criteria in their investigations (for example, alien abduction or contactee groups). This presents an interesting problem for scientific studies of UFO data. Whereas it would appear that there are a number of very active ufologists and ufology groups around the world, some exist, it seems, only to garner media attention and massage delicate egos, without actually doing any research or in-depth investigation of cases.
This is certainly a product of the non-professional nature of the UFO field, where post office clerks and truck drivers can claim expertise as well as astronomers and psychologists. This may be frustrating to serious researchers, but must be accepted as an artefact of the subject area. This situation has led some researchers to note that UFO investigation, as an art or aspect applying scientific methodology, is “dead.” Further complicating this problem was the cessation of the collection of UFO reports by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).
The NRC routinely received UFO reports from private citizens and from RCMP, civic police and military personnel, with the understanding that many reports of UFOs can be positively identified as meteors or bolides, and the tracking of such reports could lead to the discovery of a meteorite fall. In fact, the combination of photographic tracking networks and the receipt of eyewitness reports combined on at least one occasion that allowed a significant meteorite find in Innisfree, Alberta on February 5, 1977. However, the NRC noted that although the all-sky cameras record a large area of the night sky, They have never seen what is usually called an Unidentified Flying Object and surely this negative evidence should be considered in any discussion about the reality of UFOs. (Halliday et al. “The Innisfree meteorite and the Canadian camera network.” Journal of 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 3 the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, vol. 72, Feb. 1978, p. 15-39.) [emphasis in original] Included among the NRC reports are many observations of meteors and fireballs, and these had been added into the Canadian UFO Survey database since it began in 1989. However, in 1995, due to budget restraint and the lack of continuing research in meteoritics at the NRC as a result of retirements, deaths and other staff changes, the NRC announced it would no longer be accepting UFO reports as a matter of course. As a consequence, RCMP reporting of UFOs and fireballs to the NRC summarily ceased at that time.
This shift away from relatively good public access to official UFO reports to little or no access has resulted in an increase in Access to Information (AI) requests filed by ufologists with various government and military agencies in Canada. (These are the Canadian equivalent of the American Freedom of Information Act requests.) These have yielded some UFO cases, but the process is very time-consuming, costly and may not uncover all the cases needed for study. As a consequence of these factors, what has been adopted for this present study is a requirement for an “official” status regarding UFO reports. If UFO sightings are reported to groups or individuals who do not share their case data with serious researchers, those sightings are effectively lost to scientific analyses. The reports may accumulate in impressive numbers claimed by some organizations, but without the data being available for study, they are of no value whatsoever. Therefore, for the purposes of this and other scientific studies of UFO data, only those UFO sightings which have been made to contributing and participating groups, associations, organizations or individuals can be given any kind of official status. Cases reported to any other group, association, club or individual cannot be considered officially reported.
These factors have made collection of Canadian UFO data rather challenging. Certainly, because of the changes and variation in the way in which reports were received or obtained, it is difficult to make direct comparisons between years. However, the data obtained for the present analysis is still useful in understanding the nature of UFO reports in Canada, and can shed light on the nature of UFO reports elsewhere in the world. UFOs as Vital Intelligence A significant 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: 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 4 CIRVIS reports should be made immediately upon a vital intelligence sighting of any airborne, waterborne and ground objects or activities which appear to be hostile, suspicious, unidentified or engaged in illegal smuggling activity. Examples of events requiring CIRVIS reports are: – unidentified flying objects; – submarines or warships which are not Canadian or American; – violent explosions; and – unexplained or unusual activity in Polar regions, abandoned airstrips or other remote, sparsely populated areas. [DND Flight Information Publication – GPH 204. Flight Planning and Procedures, Canada and North Atlantic, Issue No. 57, Effective 0901Z 20 May 1999] 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.
UFO Reports in Canada For this study, the working definition of a UFO is: “an object seen in the sky which its observer cannot identify.” The number of UFO sightings officially reported each year in Canada throughout the past 25 years was initially comparatively small. In 1989, 141 UFO reports were obtained for analysis. In 1990, 194 reports were recorded. In 1991, 165 reports were received and in 1992, 223 cases were examined. But in 1993, a significant jump to 489 reports was realized. The following years were lower again: 189 reports received in 1994 and 183 in 1995. UFO report numbers remained at about this level until about 2000, when a markedly upward trend began, lasting until the present. In a five-year period, there was about a fourfold increase in the number of UFO reports, from 1999 to 2004. Curiously, the number of reports seemed to reach another plateau at this time, lasting until the very unusual high level in 2012. Overall, however, there has been an increase in UFO report numbers since the Canadian UFO Survey was initiated in 1989. The number of reports received in 1993 represented a significant increase over previous years. The largest contributor to this increase was a single fireball event on October 30, 1993.
That evening, a spectacular object and a sonic boom was reported by literally hundreds of people throughout Canada. More than 120 individual reports were filed with astronomers, RCMP, police, the NRC and other agencies. The implication of this case is that statistical tabulations of 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 5 UFO characteristics in 1993 were skewed by a significant amount. Report numbers for 1994 and 1995 once again reflected the previously-determined Canadian average. (The most interesting implication of this event was that the UFO reports from October 30, 1993, actually reflected a real event that had occurred. This lends some credence to the belief that when a UFO is reported, a real object has been seen and was not just a fantasy of a witness’ imagination.
Therefore, it can be said that UFO reports usually imply actual observations of something out of the ordinary.) (See Appendix) UFO reports were obtained from contributing investigators’ files, press clippings and the files of the National Research Council of Canada (NRC). The NRC routinely receives UFO reports from private citizens and from RCMP, civic police and military personnel. Included among the NRC reports are many observations of meteors and fireballs, and these have been added into the UFO report database since 1989. Many of the reports were obtained via electronic mail and Internet newsgroups, and when social media became widely used, reports have also been received via Facebook, Youtube and Twitter and. Finally, some declassified documents of the Department of National Defence contain reports of unusual objects in Canadian airspace, and these also have been included in the database. There were several reasons for including IFOs such as fireballs and bolides in the UFO report database. First, previous studies of UFO data have included meteor and fireball reports. In many instances, observers failed to recognize stars, aircraft and bolides, and therefore reported them as UFOs. That is why some UFO investigators often spend many hours sorting IFOs from UFOs.
Historically, analyses of UFO data such as American projects Grudge, Sign and Blue Book all included raw UFO data which later resolved into categories of UFOs and IFOs. Another reason is that observed objects are sometimes quickly assigned a particular IFO explanation even though later investigation suggests such an explanation was unwarranted. Issues with UFO data Five Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CE4) were included in the data for 1994-95. CE4s are the sensational “alien abduction” cases which have received wide attention in the media. Some researchers have speculated that thousands of such abductions occur each year, based on various surveys and the number of witnesses (abductees) coming forward. Since abductions are often reported long after the fact, exact times and dates are meaningless and usually unobtainable as UFO data. Similarly, since witnesses’ memories often are clouded or obscured, other data such as colour, duration and even location may be impossible to ascertain. Some skeptics suggest that abductions may be a psychological rather than a “real” phenomenon.
For these reasons, we would argue that CE4s do not seem appropriate for inclusion in UFO databases. And, if abduction incident really are true close encounters, their complexity decrees that their inclusion in a raw data listing might be inappropriate as well. The few that were included were accepted only because they were reported to an official reporting body, which is usually not the case for such incidents. 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 6 Cases contributed or obtained after annual analyses were done were not included in their year’s data, nor were the analyses regenerated. A long-term project is to enter this collection of excluded data for a future study.
IFOs 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 issue of including IFOs in studies of UFO data is an important one.
One could argue that once a sighting is explained, it has no reason to be considered as a UFO report. However, this overlooks the fact that the IFO was originally reported as a UFO and is indeed valid data. It may not be evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, but as UFO data, it is quite useful. It must be remembered that all major previous studies of UFOs examined UFO reports with the intent to explain all cases (but not quite succeeding). IFOs are definitely part of the UFO report legacy. IFOs are problematic in that they are not interesting to most ufologists. In fact, some UFO investigators readily admit they do not record details about UFO reports that seem easily explained as ordinary objects. This may be a serious error. The UFO witness may be conscientiously reporting an object that is mysterious to him or her: the exact definition of a UFO. Therefore, even late-night, anonymous telephone calls that are obviously reports of airplanes or planets should be rightly logged as UFO reports. It seems reasonable that all UFO reports be included in statistical databases and in later studies on the phenomenon, regardless of the cases’ later reclassification as IFOs. Results of Data Mining: Reports A total of 14,541 cases were recorded during the past 25 years of the Canadian UFO Survey.
This is an average of 582 UFO reports per year, although the yearly numbers have been steadily increasing across time, from a low of 141 in 1989 to 1,180 in 2013. The all-time yearly high was in 2012 when 1,981 UFO cases were recorded. 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 7 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 8 Results of Data Mining: “Hotspots” A frequent query from media and UFO buffs regarding geographical distribution of cases is the location of UFO “hotspots” ― those places where UFOs are seen most frequently. Although there are several places in Canada with such a reputation, this was not revealed through the annual studies. One definitive result is the fact that UFO sightings are related to population density. Essentially, the greater the population density, the higher the number of reports. This is logical in that since it is UFO sightings that are being studied, and not UFOs themselves, it makes sense that the more potential UFO witnesses available, the more reports will be generated. Because of this, more UFO sightings were reported from metropolitan centres. However, this was not completely related to population.
Witnesses were invited to note the nearest town or 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 9 city as a location; in many cases, a suburb of a city was indicated, necessitating some geographical grouping. The cities with the largest number of cases were: Cities Toronto 623 Winnipeg 521 Vancouver 504 Calgary 431 Edmonton 324 Montreal 287 However, when we add in suburbs of metropolitan areas, we get a slightly different result: Metropolitan Areas Vancouver 1,393 Toronto 1,127 Winnipeg 536 Calgary 472 Edmonton 395 Hamilton 348 The location “Vancouver” includes New Westminster, Burnaby, Surrey, Delta, etc. Similarly, “Toronto” includes Mississauga, North York, Richmond Hill, Markham, etc. Note that the distribution of UFO reports is not directly related to population. If this were the case, the list would reflect the cities with the highest populations: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa. Results of Data Mining: Witnesses The number of witnesses of UFOs has risen over time, reflecting the number of reports each year. Obviously, if there are more UFO reports, there will be more witnesses. More significant is the calculation of the average number of witnesses per UFO sighting, which has remained remarkably stable.
The number of witnesses per year has ranged from 291 in 1989 to 1,895 in 2013. But the average number of witnesses per year has ranged between a low of 1.33 in 1998 to a high of 3.13 in 1996. The overall average is 1.84 witnesses per case. This indicates that the typical UFO experience has more than one witness, and supports the contention that UFO sightings 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 10 represent observations of real, physical phenomena, since there is usually a corroborator present to support the sighting. 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 11 Results of Data Mining: Colours In cases where a colour of an object was reported, the most common colour was white (29 per cent), followed by orange (21 per cent) and then ‘multicoloured’ (17 per cent). Since most UFOs are nocturnal starlike objects, the abundance of white objects is not surprising. Orange is often associated with the appearance of Chinese lanterns, sent aloft during celebrations. It should not be surprising that daylight discs are most commonly described as black or silver. Other colours such as red, blue and green often are associated with bolides (fireballs). A separate breakdown of UFO sightings noted as being “fireballs” shows that most are green (26 per cent), then white (24 per cent), then blue (16 per cent) and orange (15 per cent). Most Nocturnal Light cases were white (29 per cent), then orange (21 per cent) and multicoloured (17 per cent). Point source UFOs were also mostly white (31 per cent), then orange (24 per cent) and multicoloured (19 per cent). The ‘multicoloured’ designation is problematic in that it literally covers a wide range of possibilities. Some studies of UFO data have adjusted the category of colour to include both 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 12 “primary” and “secondary” colours in cases where the observed UFO had more than one colour. The multicoloured label has been used, for example, when witnesses described their UFOs as having white, red and green lights. For the present study, the Colour classification refers only to the primary colour in the witness’ description.
Results of Data Mining: Duration 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 13 The category of Duration is interesting in that it represents the subjective length of time a witness believes a UFO experience lasted. Naturally, these times are greatly suspect because it is known that people tend to misjudge the flow of time. However, some individuals can be good at estimating time, so this value does have some meaning. Although an estimate of “one hour” in a particular case may be in error by several minutes, it is unlikely that the correct value would be, for example, one minute (disregarding the claims of “missing time” during the abduction category of experiences). Furthermore, there have been cases when a UFO was observed and clocked accurately, so that we can be reasonably certain that UFO events can last considerable periods of time. The average Duration of a sighting was calculated as the summation of all cases’ durations divided by the number of cases with a stated duration. The resulting value has been as low as 7 minutes in 1994-95, but has been as long as a remarkable 26 minutes! This is very long time for a witness to be observing an unusual object in the sky.
The average Duration of all sightings was 16.8 minutes (1,008 seconds). Considering Unknowns only, the Duration drops to 14.2 minutes (850 seconds). In total, 25.76 per cent of all sightings were briefer than 10 seconds, and 8.85 per cent were between 1 minute and 2 minutes in duration. But 12.65 per cent were longer than half an hour in duration. Unknowns show a different distribution. Only 17.78 per cent were shorter than 10 seconds. And 9.78 were longer than half an hour in Duration. In general, Unknowns were of moderate Duration: neither short nor long. This gives some insight into their nature; a case of extremely short Duration might not have enough content to be considered truly Unexplained, but a long Duration case would likely be explainable as a star or planet. 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 observations at this time are those of astronomical objects, moving slowly with the rotation of the Earth. It should be noted that Duration data by itself is not wholly useful in analysing UFO behaviour. Hendry describes Duration data this way: Duration is a powerful feature of identity when it refers to extremely short and long events, but is otherwise mostly a reflection of the witness’s behaviour during the event, coupled with the fluctuating behaviour of the objects watched. (1979, p. 249) Extremely short duration events are usually fireballs or bolides, while very 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. (Hendry also cites a Canadian study by an Ontario UFO group which timed aircraft observations and found that the 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 14 duration of such sightings varied between 15 seconds to more than 8 minutes.) There does not seem to be a clear relationship between the number of reports and the Duration of UFO sightings. 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 15 Results from Data Mining: Source UFO data used in this study were supplied by or obtained through dozens of different groups, organizations, official agencies and private individuals. Many of these groups and individuals have ceased investigation or collection of UFO sightings. Since the annual surveys began in the late 1980s, more and more cases have been obtained and received via the Internet. Of all the cases collected for the study during the past 25 years, a total of one quarter (25 per cent) came through a combination (alliance) of Sightings.com and the former Houston, BC, Centre for UFOs (HBCCUFO).
The two had a total of about 32 per cent in 2010 and 35 per cent in 2011, but up to 45 per cent in 2012 and down to 24 per cent in 2013. The decline in 2013 was due to HBCCUFO scaling down its activity and has announced it will be ceasing operation. 25 Years of Canadian UFO Reports 16 13.60 per cent came from the private and non-profit National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC) in the USA. NUFORC has a toll-free telephone number for reporting UFOs and a large sightings list created through voluntary submission of online report forms by witnesses. About 11.54 per cent of Canadian cases were reported to the large organization, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), which has a good online reporting system. About 6.18 per cent of all UFO sightings reported in were communicated directly to Ufology Research or the former Ufology Research of Manitoba. A significant 5.83 per cent of all cases came as a result of information obtained through sources considered “government” or “official,” including Transport Canada, the Department of National Defence, the National Research Council of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
It should be noted that the preparation of annual Surveys is quite challenging. Few UFO investigators or researchers actually submit case data to Ufology Research, 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.
For more information: Ufology Research Box 204 Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3V 1L6
Email: canadianuforeport@hotmail.com Web: http://survey.canadianuforeport.com