Typological analysis

Witnesses of UAP phenomena have reported a wide range of shapes. The frequency distribution of such shapes can be studied comparatively, and UAP sightings reported in New York, Connecticut and Ontario can be so compared together (see Fig. 22). What is important here is not so much the way in which UAP shapes are distributed statistically but the way in which the same shapes are reported in the three considered areas. Correlation analyses show that witnesses in these three areas tend to see in the same way anomalous objects in the sky. This comparison is not certainly accidental as the spectrum of variations of UAP shapes is quite rich, in fact the typology represented by databases is characterized by 18 different shapes, most of which (except for the cases of “Lights” and “Fireballs”) are very well characterized. This doesn’t demonstrate at all that what is seen is caused by extraterrestrial visitation, but shows a common effect of sight perception by the witnesses. This means that people really see what they see, independently from the real nature of these sightings. There is no doubt that some of these shapes might be due to a different view angle with which an apparently different shape is seen. For instance, a “Sphere” can be a “Disk” seen orthogonally to the sight line, an “Oval” can be a “Disk” seen obliquely, a “Cigar” can be a “Disk” seen edge-on, a “Formation” can be the result of the impression that a single object having a precise geometrical light disposition (such as: “Triangle”, “Rectangle”, “Chevron”, “Diamond, “Boomerang”) can trigger in the witness looking at that shape from far away (see again Fig. 0).

The better correlation between New York and Connecticut than from each one of them with Ontario is explained by the fact that Ontario data have been obtained from more than one database (NUFORC, UFOINFO plus some additions from Imbrogno's book and a more accurate screening). Therefore the correlation between the two US states, where the data have been obtained from the same source (NUFORC plus some additions from Imbrogno's book) can be considered representative of the obtained result, meaning that witnesses see the same thing and with the same detail in a specific area of the world. Clearly it is too early to extend this conclusion to the entire world. Unfortunately UAP databases are not available from all the areas of the world, and so no possible suitable comparison can be done so far. But certainly the example presented here shows how human perception (both visual and psychological, in case) is able to furnish many precise details, which are then registered in the same way even if from different locations. Any speculation on the true nature of what is really seen by witnesses is so far premature. In fact monitoring instrumentation is the only documentation means able to uncover the true nature of what is seen [Refs. 73, 74, 79].