23857122-0457-180273-0030

Solely to indioate the possible astronomical content of the reports at hand, in the primary analysis all evidence was accepted at face value, with no attempt to evaluate psychological factors. Fre- quently,, however, when fairly kiberal limits of tolerance were ale hte lowed, the report made sense physically, whereas the literal tA statement did not. (Whenever allowance was made for possible errors . ariging from subjective reporting, the fact was noted.) lurther~ more, while some of the reports verge on the ludicrous, the atti-~ tude deliberately adopted was to assume honesty and sincerity on the part of the reporter. 4mong the general public, two attitudes +: he ie ss t : ? eS toward flying saucers” seem to be prevalent: one, that all are Z > t a Obviously illusions, halluc inations, or hoaxes; the other, that " . i : ; "ae : Py there must be something to it." From the outset, this investigator has attempted to regard @ach report, insofar as is logically possible 4s an honest statement by the observer, and to adhere to neither of the two schools of thought. a | One further comment should be made: almost all of the da 3 +s £4} Ra +3, 4 = +i wot gan c¢ " . aes tte big ry 47 ,f +} deait with in this investigation are extremely tenuous. Many of the observers’ reports are incomplete and inexact, and some are distinc contradictory. therefore, it has obviously been impossible to reach 1 ttt ee a sp. va : = is met owed 4 Ae eee noone A OS 16 2°20) LuUSy sc Lentil 1c conclu sior nSs MOST exXp ianatic ns are oliered in a sen p % © Pa reg 3 : it 2 SRST aos pee ee eee terms of probability, the degree of which is discussed in the indiv e dual reports, but can be indicated only generally in the statistics r > : r ee es sell ee 5 = = 7% rr ry b./ ~ § be | i ae Declassification Authority: NND 57565