Image needed

 See the separate entry in relation to APRO.

Air Force Letter 200-5

AFL 200-5 was later modified by the release of AFR 200-2 (26^th August 1953).

Washington National sightings

"Impact" Rating = 14

"Credibility" Rating = 14

"Expert" Rating = 13

"Strangeness" Rating = 10

(Commonly referred to as the Washington National sightings).

This incident is Case 8 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article, since it was referred to in 171of the books covered by that article.

Official US documents about this incident can be found online. See the material on the ambitious “Project Blue Book Archive” website in relation to Project Blue Book Case Number 1649 and Project Blue Book Case Number 1661, which commences at the links provided (and continues on the pages which follow them).

This incident came second in a survey in 1965 by Jacques Vallee of the opinion of various UFO groups as to the most significant UFO sightings.

This incident came seventh in an online poll conducted in March/April 2006 by Paul Kimball of “the UFO case with the ‘best evidence’ ever”. This incident has also featured in a list by Paul Kimball of his own nominations for the top 10 cases.

This incident also featured in a document (“the Rockefeller Briefing Document”) endorsed by Dr Mark Rodeghier (President of CUFOS), Richard Hall (Chairman of FUFOR) and Walter Andrus (President of MUFON) as containing “the best available evidence for the existence of UFOs”.

This incident has also featured in lists by various UFO researchers of the top UFO cases, including the following:

* a list by Don Berliner of “the top 10 cases of World Ufology” in an interview made available on the UFO UpDates discussion List on 14 January 2007.

* a list by James Carrion, the International Director of the Mutual UFO Network, of the “top 10 cases” in an interview in 2006.

* a list of Dennis Balthaser’s “ten favourite cases” in an article in the MUFON Journal in 2003.

Isaac Koi’s “ICES” Rating for this sighting = 25,480 (out of a potential score of 14*14*14*14 i.e. 38,416)

(1) “Impact” Rating of 14 (out of a potential score of 14), because it is Case 8 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article.

(2) “Credibility” Rating of 14 (out of a potential score of 14) because radar operators saw something on their screens. The debate has centered on what (if anything) was actually detected by the radar systems.

(2) “Expert” Rating of 13 (out of a potential score of 14). It is given this relatively high rating because (at the time of writing) it has been included in many of the short lists of the best cases produced by various UFO researchers that have been compiled by Isaac Koi (see the “Best UFO Cases" article at PART 3: Existing lists by various individuals).

(4)“Strangeness” Rating of 10 (out of a potential score of 14). The sighting has an above average strangeness rating since there is considerable debate as to whether the reported radar returns are explainable by temperature inversions or other mundane causes.

Sections below:

1. Web Resources

2. Book References

3. Other material

Air Force Regulation 200-3

Superseded by Air Force Regulation 200-3 dated 13^th May 1955.

Tremonton film

"Impact" Rating = 13

"Credibility" Rating = 12

"Expert" Rating = 7

"Strangeness" Rating = 5

Commonly referred to as “the Tremonton film” and “the Utah film”.

This incident is Case 34 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article, since it was referred to in 64 of the books covered by that article.

Isaac Koi’s “ICES” Rating for this sighting = 5,460 (out of a potential score of 14*14*14*14 i.e. 38,416)

(1) “Impact” Rating of 13 (out of a potential score of 14), because it is Case 34 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article.

(2) “Credibility” Rating of 12 (out of a potential score of 14) because the debate regarding this incident has centered on what was filmed, rather than whether the incident was a hoax.

(2) “Expert” Rating of 7 (out of a potential score of 14). It is given this neutral rating because (at the time of writing) it has not been included in any of the short lists of the best cases produced by various UFO researchers that have been compiled by Isaac Koi (see the “Best UFO Cases" article at PART 3: Existing lists by various individuals), but also is not commonly given by UFO researchers as an example of an incident that can be explained by hoax, misperception or other mundane cause.

(4)“Strangeness” Rating of 5 (out of a potential score of 14). The sighting has a below average strangeness rating since there is relatively limited evidence to be explained as to the nature of the objects that was filmed. Several researchers have plausibly suggested that the objects that were filmed were merely birds.

Sections below:

1. Web Resources

2. Book References

3. Other material

Nash Fortenberry sighting

"Impact" Rating = 13

"Credibility" Rating = 12

"Expert" Rating = 10

"Strangeness" Rating = 5

This incident is Case 44 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article, since it was referred to in 57 of the books covered by that article.

This incident featured in a list of the ten “best” case published by Ronald Story in his book “UFOs and the Limits of Science” (1981).

This incident featured in the results of a survey in 1965 by Jacques Vallee of the opinion of various UFO groups as to the most significant UFO sightings. As part of the same survey, NICAP included this case in a list of 5 cases which it nominated as being the best.

Isaac Koi’s “ICES” Rating for this sighting = 7,800 (out of a potential score of 14*14*14*14 i.e. 38,416)

(1) “Impact” Rating of 13 (out of a potential score of 14), because it is Case 44 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article.

(2) “Credibility” Rating of 12 (out of a potential score of 14) because this sighting was by several credible witnesses. The debate regarding this incident has focused on what caused the sighting, rather than suggesting a hoax.

(2) “Expert” Rating of 10 (out of a potential score of 14). It is given this above average rating because (at the time of writing) it has been included in a small nubmer of the short lists of the best cases produced by various UFO researchers that have been compiled by Isaac Koi (see the “Best UFO Cases" article at PART 3: Existing lists by various individuals).

(4)“Strangeness” Rating of 5 (out of a potential score of 14). The sighting has a below average strangeness rating since several authors (particularly Philip Klass) have suggested plausible mundane causes for the sighting, particularly a meteor.

Sections below:

1. Web Resources

2. Book References

3. Other material

Salem photo

"Impact" Rating = 14

"Credibility" Rating = 14

"Expert" Rating = 7

"Strangeness" Rating = 6

This incident is Case 75 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article, since it was referred to in 38 of the books covered by that article.

J Allen Hynek has referred to this photograph as a “widely publicized case”, a “classic” that “has made the rounds in just about every magazine and book on the subject”.

This was Project Blue Book Case Number 1501.

Isaac Koi’s “ICES” Rating for this sighting = 8,232 (out of a potential score of 14*14*14*14 i.e. 38,416)

(1) “Impact” Rating of 12 (out of a potential score of 14), because it is Case 95 in Isaac Koi's "Top 100" article.

(2) “Credibility” Rating of 5 (out of a potential score of 14) because there is persuasive evidence that the eyewitness account that accompanied this photo was untrue.

(2) “Expert” Rating of 7 (out of a potential score of 14). It is given this neutral rating because (at the time of writing) it has not been included in any of the short lists of the best cases produced by various UFO researchers that have been compiled by Isaac Koi (see the “Best UFO Cases" article at PART 3: Existing lists by various individuals), but also is not commonly given by UFO researchers as an example of an incident that can be explained by hoax, misperception or other mundane cause.

(4)“Strangeness” Rating of 5 (out of a potential score of 14). The sighting has a relatively low strangeness rating since the photo merely shows unstructured lights.

Sections below:

1. Web Resources

2. Book References

3. Other material