The Air Force Statistics: A PROBLEM OF ACCURACY John A. Keel k 1966, 1 collected all of the available U.S, Air Force sta- tistical reports on unidentified fly- ing objects and spent many long hours comparing their figures for various years and rechecking all of their calculations on an adding ma~ chine. The results were very in- triguing, Ie was obvious that the Air Force statistics had been wantonly juggled from year to year and that their total reliability was nil, ‘The tables in the 1966 Project Blue Book report, for example, contained no less than 22 blatant mistakes tn basic arithmatic, Apparently n0 one in the Air Force can evenade, More perplexing, perhaps, is the fact that many UFO researchers have repeat edly published these erroneous figures in thelr publications without ever bothering to check the statis- fies out, ‘These false tables have also been published over and over again in newspapers throughovt the world and in other governmental publications dealing with UFOs. Tcompiled a most extensive breakdown of these incredible dis crepancies and wrote a 6,000 word analysis, complete with graphs, charts and tables which fully Gemon- strated how the Air Force figures have been manipulated, This article has floated from publisher ro pub Iisher for two years andwas rejected by everyone from TRUE, ARGOSY, and SAGA to more obscure “scien: tific” publications, The ustial reason for rejection was that the piece was 8 “too technical’, Mass magazines were afraid of boring their readers with an article which dealt purely with statistics and mathematics, However, I do feel that this study is of prime importance to ufologists and so | will summarize the results here, You can check my findings with your own Blue Book files and | hope you will use this material as ‘‘am- munition’’ in your own lectures, dio and TV appearances, and pub- lications. By emphasizing the total inaccuracy and unreliability of the ‘Air Force calculations we can di- minish the validity of the govern- ment’s anti-UFO claims. Tam grateful to several indepen- dent researchers who provided me with earlier Blue Book releases for this study, For years Project Blue Book told us that a mere 79 UFO reports had been received by the Air Force in 1947, Actually, over 500 sightings had been. published in newspapers from coast-to-coast. during the single two week period of late June and early July 1947, Mr. Ted Bloecher compiled and published 200 of these reports last year, In Blue Book’s 1966 report the 1947 figure was suddenly changed from 79 to 122, Somehow, ap- parently, an additional 43 sightings from 1947 had turned up 19 years later. In their 1966 listings they un- accountably increaseal the number of sightings for each year except 1949, 1952 and 1954, In my SAGA article of October 1967, I noted that the report of the “Top Secret” C.I.A. panel onUF issued in 1953, declared that there had been 1,900 sighting reports re- ceived in 1952, Blue Book's 1966 report lists only 1,501 sightings for that year. What ‘happened to the other 399? In their “SPECIAL REPORT #14” Issued in 1955, Project Blue Book openly stated: “Official reports on hand at the end of 1954 totaled 4,834", Blue Book's 1960 report offered the following break- down: 1947 - 79 1948 - 143 1949 - 186 1950 - 169 1951-121 1952 - 1501 1953 - 425 1954 —_429 3,053 TOTAL It looks as if a whopping 1,781 UFO cases were misplaced some- where between 1955 and 1960 (4,834 compared with3,058), But hefore you start worrying about those missing files, 297 of them apparently turned up again in 1965-66. Here are the official Air Force statistics for those same years as published in 1966: 1947 - 122 1948 - 156 1949 - 186 1950 - 210 1951 - 169 1952 - 1501 1953 1954BLUE BOOK SPECIAL REPORT #14 stated that a total of 3,201 cases received from 1947 to 1952 were used in their tabulations. But if you add up the 1966 figures for those same years you will find that they total only 2,344. Somewhere in the Pentagon a strong wind blew away 857 clouds of swamp gas between 1953 and 1966, If you add up the 1955-1966 figures and compare them with the earlier figures, you will find that a total of 1,494 sighting reports have been juggled out of existence, And that’s only astarter, ‘They've also been adding as well as substracting. Blue Book's 1960 report claimed that a total of 6,312 reports were received between 1947-59, But when you check their 1967 figures for that same period you arrive at a total of 6,578. Somehow, in recent years another 266 ancient cases have turned up. Another enigmatic 121 cases were added to the years 1953-59 in the 1966 report, But in 1960 the Air Force total for those years was 4,113. In 1966 it jumped suddenly to 4,234, Here are some other specific examples. SPECIFIC ALTERATIONS IN AIR FORCE UFO STATISTICS (Bor the purposes of this analy- sis we have selected only one column of figures for comparison, You will find that most of the other Air Force statistics can be compared in the same manner and that equally blatant errors are present.) 1) Statistics as released by the US, ‘Air Force in the spring of 1966. 1958 Astronomical 221 ‘sireratt 104 Balloon 50 Insufficient data rf Other 93, Satellite 3 Unidentified _10 Air Force Total for 827 this column Actual Total 602 (add it yourself) ‘The above figures (and all the other columns were erroneous, t00) were widely published , . , even in the formal report on the UFO Hear- ing of the Armed Services Com- mittee, April 5, 1966. 2.) Someone in Project Blue Book’ finally caught the mistakes and the numbers in all the columns were juggled to matchthe previously published totals, Here is the same column turned out in a later Air Force release, Compare it with the above. 1958 Astronomical 231 Aircraft 106 Balloon 38 Insufficient data m1 Other 93 Satellite 18 Unidentified ale Air Force's new Total 627 for this column ‘Actual Total 627 It now matches the figures. 3.) The Condon Report chose to publish the first set of figures (page 521) but wisely deleted all totals, If you add up the basic columns in Table 3, page 521, you will find that the totals do not match the totals in Table 1, page 514. 4.) If you add up the horizontal columns in Table 1, page 514, you will discover similar discrepancies. ‘The column for 1953, for example, adds up to 508, The Air Force total ig 509. If you add up the basic data column for 1953 in Table 3, page 521, you will get a total of 530. ‘The original Air Force total for this column was 505, Thus we have no less than four different totals for a column of ancient statistics which should have remained stable over the years, Instead, the Air Force keeps adding and subtracting from its data and can’t even figure out the correct total! 5.) If you do not have a copy of the Blue Book release for 1965-66, you can find an accurate reproduc- tion of these tables in Captain Lof- tin’s book, “IDENTIFIED FLYING SAUCERS", pages 233-236, Com- pare it carefully to the earlier tables as reproduced in the Condon Report. Add up the columnof “Total Sightings” - 1947-66 (Loftin, page 233), While the Air Force total is 11,003, the actual total is 10,903, ‘The figure for 1965 is given as 886. Later this was changed to 887 by the Air Force, as per Table 1 inthe Condon Report. 6.) In the Air Force's own Blue Book Report #14 (1955), Table AL presents a complete breakdown of the sighting reports evaluated inthat study. These were from the years 1947 to 1952 exclusively. A total of 2300 reports are represented, Of these, 689 are listedas ‘Unknown’ Elsewhere in Report #14, (page vill) it is stated, “Official reports on hand at the end of 1954 totaled 4834, Of these 425 were produced in 1953and 429 in 1954... Theperiod January E, 1935 to May 5, 1955 accounted for 131 unidentified aerial object, reports received." Now compare the above Air Force figures with the figures pub- lished in the tables in the Condon Report, and in Loftin’s book. ‘A total of 434 “unknowns” were selected for the Report #14 study, A total of 689were definitely classi- fied as “‘unknown’’, Yet in 1966, we were told that the grand total of ‘anknowns'* for the past 19 years was only 659.. Thirty less than the 1952 total! Are you confused and be~ wildered? You were meant to be. THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT THE AIR FORCE STATISTICS ARE NOT WORTHTHE PAPER THEY'RE PRINTED ON, The figures are de- liberately juggled from year to year. ‘The compilers may have safely felt that no one would bother to add up and compare all of those digits. ‘Traditionally, people only look at the final column in statistics ... the totals. Few ever bother to check all the columns. Someone connected with the Con don Project did bother to check out the Air Force table, it seems. So they deliberately deleted all totals from all columns when they re- produced the 1966 figures (dated November 1, 1965) as Table 3, page 521 of the Condon Report, These erroneous totals have been widely published, as 1 already said, and 9we are forced to assume that the Condon Report DELIBERATELY DELETED THE MISTAKEN TO- TALS AND THIS ACT OF DELETION MUST THEREFORE BE CON- SIDERED DELIBERATE FRAUD. AT THE VERY LEAST IT INDI- CATES THAT THE OTHER TABLES AND DATA CONTAINED IN THE, CONDON REPORT MAY HAVE SUF- FERED SIMILAR ALTERATION, In short, the entire contents of the Con- don Report must be questioned. If they deliberately executed afraud in one Table, they may have done the same thing in many other sections of the Report. ‘The very basic validity of the Air Force figures is in doubt, The 1949 Project Grudge Report claimed that_a total of 375 UFO sightings were received and studied between 1947 and 1949, ‘This figure was widely published, When we add up the 1960 totals for those years we get 408. The 1966 total for those same years is 464. Thus, we have three distinct official totals for the same three years - 375, 408 and 464. The figures for ‘unknown’? sightings has also proven to be widely variable over the years. So variable that they can not be taken seriously. ‘The Condon project undertook a general poll of UFO witnesses, One of the poll's findings was that only 13% of all UFO witnesses reported their sightings to anyone, and that only a still smaller percentage (undefined in the Report) reported directly to the Air Force, Other sections of the Condon Report juggle this basic statistic around, We are told that only 7% of all witnesses report in another chapter, and 10% is still another figure given else- where, This is inexcusable in a “scientific study"’. Obviously the various contributors to the report were not familiar with poll and its findings. This slip-shod lack of coordination is evident throughout the Condon Report, Such wanton er- rors are proof of disinterest and incompetence, In previous articles 1 have of- fered my own calculations, based upon extensive field studies of my ‘own, which have led me to con- clude that as few as 2%, of all UFO witnesses actually bother to report directly to the Air Force, The Condon study substantiates. my a findings, This means that the Air Force statistics, even if they were accurate - which they're not, would be dealing with a sampling too small toprovide any conclusive data. It also means that we must multiply each claimed Air Force statistic by almost 100 in order to really ascertain the scope of any particu- lar flap. Thus, if the Air Force did receive 536 UFO sightings in July 1952, as claimed, then the actual total number of sightings that month was closer to 50,000! Considering all of “the visible discrepancies in the Air Force statistics, it is highly probable that the Pentagon has been deliberately reducing the figures all along, matching their statistics to the amount of publicity a given ‘flap’* received, The ‘flap’? of 1952 was well-publicized so they were forced to submit relatively high figures. Other, lesser known ‘‘flaps’” were ignored and the official Air Force figures were set at absurdly low numbers - 12 or 15. ‘The Table on page 514 of the Condon Report is purportedly a breakdown of the monthly sightings received by the Air Force from 1950 to 1968. I must point out that 1949's PROJECT GRUDGE REPORT terminated official Air Force in- terest in the subject. PROJECT BLUE BOOK was not established until later in 1951. Therefore, the figures for 1950-51 are automati- cally suspect, In 1958, BLUE BOOK claimed that it had received a total of 414 reports for the month of November 1957 alone, Table 1, page 514 of the Condon Report lists only 361 sightings for November 1957.S0 another 53 cases have vanished from the Air Force files over the years. One of the most significant things about Condon's “scientific” report is the complete dearth of new sta- tistical information, The Report does not even bother to include the ‘sum total of all the reports received by the project during 1966-68. This is a basic and essential figure, PRO- JECT BLUE BOOK REPORT #14 included no less than 240 charts and graphs covering such factors as geographic location, time of sightings, size, color and shape of objects reported, etc. If the Condon staff was incapable of compiling such charts they could have at least re-published the earlier work of the Ait Force (Ruppelt's teams). Dr. Jacques Vallee, a computer special- ist, has also compiled many excel- lent graphs of this type and made them available to the Condon group. Instead, the Condon project chose to present a random scattering of other Air Force data, much of it extraneous to the main. subject, Weather maps dated 1953 were thrown into the pot (pages 146- 147) and even a long and irrelevent lecture by a British astronomer was thoughtfully included in the ap- pendices, But not a single valid sta tistic on the quantity, quality or distribution of modern UFO sight- ‘ings appears inthe massive Report, Even a group of high school students conducting a local UFO study would be “scientific” enough to include basic totals ofthe number of reports they received, the number they investigated, etc. We can conclude that the Air Force statistics are a complete sham and always have been, They do not responsibly reflect the scope of the phenomenon and any scientific study of the published Air Force data {s impossible, The Condon pro- ject must have recognized this and they should have madea responsible effort to collect and correlate new data, Their failuretodoso, andtheir deliberate inclusion of false and fraudulent data proves that the pror ject was merely a pretense. All those who participated in the final collation of the Condon Report are equally guilty of defrauding the pub- lic and, more important, parti- cipating in an effort whose chief goal was to extract large sums of money from the U.S, Air Force, In short, the Condon Repott is not suitable for scientific evalua- tion. It has made no real contribu- tion to the subject, either proor con, It is not a matter for discussion in the press, Rather, it is amatterthat should be decided in a court of law. ‘A crime (fraud) has been perpetrated here. A judge and jury should pin- point the persons responsible and determine their punishment, If we do not press for legal action, the Air Force will continue to serve up falsified statistics for the next twenty years. (NOTE: The opinions in this ar- ticle are those of the author. The publisher does not necessarily agree with all of his observations.)FLYING SAUCERS CS se nts MYSTERIES OF THE SPACE AGE THE HILLS REVISITED! Ey THE MARTIAN ASTEROID HYPOTHESIS