A Preliminary Study of 600 cases of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Reported by Military and Civ

To my surprise, nobody talked here on ATS about this study which have been done by Dominique F. Weinstein, who is the French NARCAP International Technical Specialist.

Aviation Safety and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: A Preliminary Study of 600 cases of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Reported by Military and Civilian pilots
Dominique F. Weinstein NARCAP International Technical Specialist - France GEIPAN/CNES1 College of experts - France Copyright March 2012

Abstract:

This report presents the findings of a comprehensive review of 600 cases, over a period of sixty-four years in which pilots have reported the presence of one or more unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) during flight.

In 443 cases (74%) these UAP are described as “objects” (42% circular-shaped) more than as point sources of light.
In 162 cases (27%), the visual observation is confirmed by detection by ground and/or airborne radar. This report focuses more especially on 290 cases (48%) in which UAP have had (or could have had) an impact on flight safety.
In 108 cases (37% of the 290 cases), pilots have estimated that the impact on flight safety was high enough for them to submit an official Airmiss/Airprox report. It was found that the most reported events with potential impact(s) on aviation safety were: “UAP approached aircraft on a collision course” (78 cases) and “UAP circled or maneuvered close to aircraft” (59 cases).
It was found also that in 81 cases (14% of the 600 cases) pilots reported alleged electro-magnetic effects on one or more aircraft systems. Radio and compass systems were the predominant systems affected. Private aircraft were more affected by the E-M effects (alleged caused by UAP), probably due to the fact that their avionics and compasses are less shielded against magnetic/radio frequency interference and ionizing radiation than are commercial or military aircraft. It was found that in four cases military aircraft weapon systems were momentarily ineffective when targeted towards the UAP.
Finally, in 31 cases pilots had to take evasive action to avoid a collision with UAP, injuring several passengers in five cases. These findings are potentially important and deserve further in-depth study and confirmation by obtaining additional high quality aviation reports.

Exemple of the statistical repartition of the 600 cases.


Read the full PDF here

The conclusion of this study is interesting and detailed in several points as following:

This preliminary study of 600 UAP cases reported by civilian and military pilots has shown
a number of key points.
- The distribution of cases comes from the whole Earth (Continental and maritime zones);
- There are slightly more nocturnal cases (54%) than daylight cases;
- Witnesses were two or more in 69% (more than two thirds) of the cases;
- Pilots have officially reported their sightings in 197 cases (33% of the 600 cases);
- Commercial pilots have reported their sightings officially in 35% among 233 cases;
- Most of the sightings occurred during cruise phase of flight (85%);
- Visual sightings are confirmed by radar detection in 27% of the cases;
- More UAP are described as « objects » (74%) than point sources of lights. Circular (disc) is the most reported shape (42%);
- UAP perform maneuvers in more than half of the cases (56%) and their behaviours seem to reflect an interaction with the aircraft in almost 50% (299) of the 600 cases;
- In 48% (almost half) of the 600 cases, UAP have had or could have had an impact on flight safety, including 31 cases in which pilots had to make an evasive action to avoid a collision with UAP;
- Electro-magnetic effects were reported in 14% of the 600 cases, radio and compass systems were the most affected;
- Private aircrafts are more affected by the E-M effects allegedly caused by UAP;
- Weapon systems were momentarily ineffective when targeting UAP;

Most of the results (in percentages) found in this analysis of 600 cases are very close to those obtained in the 300 cases analysis published by the author in 2010-11, indicating that regardless of the total number of cases analyzed more or less the same patterns are found.
This analysis confirms the potential impact on aviation safety and the need for a serious study of these phenomena by governmental aviation departments and the International Civil Aviation Organization of the United Nations. Pilots must be informed about the flight characteristics of these phenomena and motivated to report them on a detailed basis. In too many cases, basic data, such as time of sighting, aircraft-UAP separation distance, altitude, etc., are missing in reports.
Only a systematic collection of detailed testimonies from pilots and crews will enhance the scientific research on these phenomena and will contribute to aviation safety.

An essential study to-have for any researcher!

i thought they did that here

www.abovetopsecret.com...


if not though as i cant read that post from where i am it would be interesting to know if there was a colition of ufo and aeroplane at some point,or a weird crash.

Nice work summarizing some of the key points of this report. NARCAP has a bunch of other technical reports at their website, including a hyper-thorough analysis of the well-known multiple-witness sighting over O'Hare International Airport.

Supposedly in 52-57 and 1966 we had alot of ufos sighted according to cufos.org

click

the diagram in the first post confirms only the first date 1952 with 83 sightings

The only major thing happen in 1952 was the detonation of the first Hydrogen bomb

other special cases of that era you can find in Karls excellent thread herehere

reply to post by elevenaugust
I usually like your threads and added you to my friends list a few weeks ago for that very reason.

You're an intelligent guy and seem to know the skeptical sites pretty well. So I'm slightly dubious with this OP.

James Oberg spent a lot of time and effort trying to discredit this collection in the wake of Leslie Kean's book. It's hard to believe you are an 'ingénue' in this aspect.

Am I having a bad day and mischaracterising the OP? Or are you planning an 'Oh, look what I found' post after folk have gone all celebratory about the list?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

I usually like your threads and added you to my friends list a few weeks ago for that very reason.

You're an intelligent guy and seem to know the skeptical sites pretty well. So I'm slightly dubious with this OP.

James Oberg spent a lot of time and effort trying to discredit this collection in the wake of Leslie Kean's book. It's hard to believe you are an 'ingénue' in this aspect.

Thank you, Kandinsky; but, even if it could sounds strange, I'm not aware of Oberg's work regarding this precise list.
I'm not aware of everything that is done and written on the subject, especially in English and since I'm here to learn, like many of us, I will be glad to see what's been done.

Any link for me? Thanks!

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

I usually like your threads and added you to my friends list a few weeks ago for that very reason.

You're an intelligent guy and seem to know the skeptical sites pretty well. So I'm slightly dubious with this OP.

James Oberg spent a lot of time and effort trying to discredit this collection in the wake of Leslie Kean's book. It's hard to believe you are an 'ingénue' in this aspect.

Am I having a bad day and mischaracterising the OP? Or are you planning an 'Oh, look what I found' post after folk have gone all celebratory about the list?

What's with the passive-aggression?

Originally posted by Retro~Burn
What's with the passive-aggression?

I had the same sense as Kandinsky. Look at some of elevenaugust's other posts and threads; his apparent jubilation with his recent 'discovery' of the Weinstein list just seems a little incongruent, somehow.

I too remember Oberg's shameful claims about how he had "solved" several cases on the Weinstein list, and that the list basically couldn't be trusted since those cases remained on it and in the NARCAP files. Then I tried to confirm his allegation. The very first case I checked -- Minsk, or maybe it was a Japan case, I forget which -- produced a NARCAP report which *clearly stated* that NARCAP and the author were aware of the rocket re-entry hypothesis (I think that was the proposed explanation), and were also aware that some people believed it explained this sighting. I believe NARCAP disagreed with that analysis....

The problem here with Jim calling a case "solved" can be seen in the Yukon UFO thread: he brings different assumptions to the table, and believes a case is "solved" much sooner and with much less evidence than it would actually take to solve it were one to truly consider the ET hypothesis a valid one. I think it's fair to say that he basically thinks real UFOs are impossible. I believe because of the distances. (I'll search the old posts if I need to defend this, and admit that may not be the best summary of his view, but that's the gist of the message he broadcasts, in my opinion.) So be it. Different generations, different assumptions....

Anyway, yeah, this was a weird start to a thread. I agree with Kandinsky.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Bravo again. Very much digging your posts.

reply to post by elevenaugust

Thank you, Kandinsky; but, even if it could sounds strange, I'm not aware of Oberg's work regarding this precise list.

He posted to MSNBC and you can read it here. Bob Sheaffer has also posted about the list, and Oberg, just 4 weeks ago. Circumstantially, you can appreciate why I doubted your motives in this thread and I apologise if such suspicions were misplaced.

"Weinstein List Oberg" or "Weinstein List Skeptic" are search terms that turn up posts by Sheaffer and Oberg. The ATS search also brings up a few posts made by Jim during his counter-publicity endeavours of the Kean book.

At the time I recall asking him if he was irritated by Kean's court victory against NASA (Kecksberg documentation release) and whether this was a motivation? He did seem to take particular exception to Kean's book whereas really, it's just another UFO book out of dozens that come out in a steady trickle. I hate the BS of ufology as much as he does (false claims, hoaxes, crazy myths), but differ greatly on the extent to which UFO reports can be wholly dismissed as misperceptions, hoaxes, Proton stages etc.

Like Tea&Strumpets remarks, finding errors/ solutions in several reports doesn't imply that *all* others will be similarly open to simple explanation. It does for some people, but not for others - vive la différence! In many ways, this false dichotomy of interpretation is mirrored on both sides - 'They're all misperceptions etc' or 'They're all alien spaceships' are extreme perspectives on a subject of great ambiguity.

Excellent chart OP, thanks for sharing that.
I think that some of this data was consolidated in the COMETA report, which the French are famous for.
I enjoy reading the excerpts from pilot and ground communications, as they to me
are the most solid evidence available on aerial phenomena.