|
|
Results of an Informal NARCAP Advisor Survey
on Which Visual Phenomena
Should be Studied
by
Richard F. Haines
Chief Scientist
February 24, 2001
An informal survey was completed on February 17, 2001 during NARCAP'S
organizational meeting. Each participant-advisor present rated two things: (a) the current level of understanding by "mainstream science
of each of twenty eight (28) different visual phenomena that occur in the earth's atmosphere, and (b) the degree to which any of these
phenomena should become an area of concern to NARCAP? The NARCAP advisors and guests who took this survey consisted of highly
educated individuals working primarily within many areas of science, technology, and aviation. They included astronomers, astrophysicists,
aeronautical engineers, computer scientists, pilots and flight instructors, air traffic controllers, science journalists, and other specialties.
The following results are considered only as advisory and will be used by NARCAP management in planning future activities.
(a) Current Level of Understanding by Mainstream Science?
Table 1 presents various statistics that summarize the participants' ratings
to this question. The rating scale used was: 0 = none; 1 = pure speculation, 2 = partially understood, and 3 = well understood (by today's
scientists).
Table 1
Results of Survey on Understanding
by Mainstream Scientists
|
|
ASTEROID
|
AURORA
|
BOLIDE
|
CHEMTRAILS
|
CLOUD
|
|
N of cases
|
16
|
14
|
8
|
11
|
14
|
|
Sum
|
136
|
105
|
36
|
66
|
105
|
|
Mean
|
8.5
|
7.5
|
4.5
|
6.5
|
7.5
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
3.83
|
2.54
|
2.19
|
2.95
|
3.28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRAIL
|
EARTHQ.
|
LIGHTS EBL
|
FOO FIGHTER
|
GREEN FLASH
|
|
N of cases
|
15
|
12
|
5
|
10
|
10
|
|
Sum
|
120
|
21
|
6
|
9
|
18
|
|
Mean
|
8.0
|
1.75
|
1.2
|
0.9
|
1.8
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
2.64
|
0.62
|
0.44
|
0.56
|
0.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GREEN FIREBALL
|
LIGHTNING
|
MARINE WHEEL
|
METEOR
|
METEORITE
|
|
N of cases
|
8
|
15
|
5
|
166
|
16
|
|
Sum
|
11
|
39
|
7
|
42
|
43
|
|
Mean
|
1.37
|
2.6
|
1.4
|
2.62
|
2.68
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
.51
|
0.50
|
0.54
|
0.50
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIRAGE
|
MOCK SUN
|
NOC. LIGHTS
|
PARHELIA
|
SKY FLASH
|
|
N of cases
|
14
|
11
|
10
|
5
|
7
|
|
Sum
|
29
|
27
|
17
|
9
|
11
|
|
Mean
|
2.07
|
2.45
|
1.70
|
1.80
|
1.57
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
0.47
|
0.52
|
0.67
|
0.83
|
0.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPACE FLASH
|
SPRITE
|
SAINT ELMOS
|
SUB SUN
|
SUN DOG
|
|
N of cases
|
5
|
6
|
13
|
4
|
10
|
|
Sum
|
4
|
13
|
28
|
9
|
41
|
|
Mean
|
0.80
|
2.16
|
2.15
|
2.25
|
2.40
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
0.83
|
0.75
|
0.80
|
0.95
|
0.69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UAP
|
VOLCANO LIGHT
|
WILL-O-WISP
|
|
|
|
N of cases
|
14
|
9
|
5
|
|
|
|
Sum
|
16
|
14
|
10
|
|
|
|
Mean
|
1.44
|
1.55
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
0.94
|
0.72
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 1. Expanding Ball of Light (see Haines, R.F., Expanding Ball of Light Phenomenon,
J. of Scientific Exploration, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 83-85, 1988)
(b) Should Become an Area of Concern to NARCAP?
Table 2 provides the survey results obtained to this question. The rating scale used was: 0 = no, never, 1 = perhaps, but only later, 2 = yes, but of lower importance, and 3 = yes, immediately.
Table 2 provides the survey results obtained to this question. The rating scale used was: 0 = no, never, 1 = perhaps, but only later, 2 = yes, but of lower importance, and 3 = yes, immediately.
Table 2
Results of Survey Concerning NARCAP
Interest/Concern in Each Visual Phenomenon
|
|
ASTEROID
|
AURORA
|
BOLIDE
|
CHEMTRAILS
|
CLOUD
|
|
N of cases
|
16
|
16
|
10
|
15
|
16
|
|
Sum
|
17
|
12
|
13
|
29
|
10
|
|
Mean
|
1.06
|
.75
|
1.3
|
1.93
|
0.62
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
1.06
|
.93
|
0.94
|
.096
|
0.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRAIL
|
EARTHQ.
|
LIGHTS EBL
|
FOO FIGHTER
|
GREEN FLASH
|
|
N of cases
|
16
|
14
|
11
|
12
|
12
|
|
Sum
|
21
|
31
|
20
|
22
|
16
|
|
Mean
|
1.31
|
2.21
|
1.81
|
1.83
|
1.33
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
1.30
|
1.12
|
1.08
|
1.12
|
1.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GREEN FIREBALL
|
LIGHTNING
|
MARINE WHEEL
|
METEOR
|
METEORITE
|
|
N of cases
|
12
|
6
|
9
|
16
|
16
|
|
Sum
|
17
|
22
|
12
|
20
|
14
|
|
Mean
|
1.41
|
1.38
|
1.33
|
1.25
|
0.88
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
0.99
|
1.20
|
1.41
|
1.13
|
1.09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIRAGE
|
MOCK SUN
|
NOC. LIGHTS
|
PARHELIA
|
SKY FLASH
|
|
N of cases
|
15
|
10
|
13
|
8
|
10
|
|
Sum
|
23
|
6
|
33
|
6
|
17
|
|
Mean
|
1.53
|
0.60
|
2.54
|
0.75
|
1.70
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
1.25
|
0.70
|
0.88
|
1.17
|
1.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPACE FLASH
|
SPRITE
|
SAINT ELMOS
|
SUB SUN
|
SUN DOG
|
|
N of cases
|
8
|
7
|
14
|
7
|
10
|
|
Sum
|
15
|
6
|
12
|
4
|
7
|
|
Mean
|
188
|
0.86
|
0.86
|
0.57
|
0.70
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
1.13
|
0.90
|
0.86
|
0.79
|
0.68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UAP
|
VOLCANO LIGHT
|
WILL-O-WISP
|
|
|
|
N of cases
|
13
|
11
|
8
|
|
|
|
Sum
|
34
|
17
|
12
|
|
|
|
Mean
|
2.62
|
1.55
|
1.50
|
|
|
|
Standard Dev.
|
0.96
|
1.21
|
1.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The means from Table 1 were rank ordered from least to most
"understood by mainstream science" (cf., Col. A of Table 3) with corresponding mean ratings of their "interest to NARCAP" (Col. B).
Table 2
Rank Ordered Mean Ratings of Phenomena
Judged Understanding by Current Science with
Corresponding Mean Ratings of Judged Interest to NARCAP
|
Visual Phenomenon
|
A
Rank Ordered Mean
Ratings of Under-
standing by Current Science
|
B
Mean Rating of
"Concern to
NARCAP"
|
|
|
Space Flashes
|
0.80
|
1.88
|
|
Foo Fighter(s)
|
0.90
|
1.83
|
|
UAP
|
1.14
|
2.62
|
|
Expanding ball of light
|
1.20
|
1.82
|
|
Chem trail(s)
|
1.27
|
1.93
|
|
Green fireball(s)
|
1.38
|
1.42
|
|
UAP
|
1.14
|
2.62
|
|
Marine wheel(s)
|
1.40
|
1.33
|
|
Will-o-wisp
|
1.56
|
1.50
|
|
Sky flash(es)
|
1.57
|
1.70
|
|
Noctural light(s)
|
1.70
|
2.54
|
|
Earthquake light(s)
|
1.75
|
2.21
|
|
Green flash
|
1.80
|
1.33
|
|
Parhelia
|
1.80
|
0.75
|
|
Mirage(s)
|
2.07
|
1.53
|
|
St. Elmo's fire
|
2.15
|
0.86
|
|
Sprite(s)
|
2.17
|
0.86
|
|
Sub sun
|
2.25
|
0.87
|
|
Sun dog
|
2.40
|
0.70
|
|
Mock sun
|
2.46
|
0.60
|
|
Bolide(s)
|
2.50
|
1.30
|
|
Lightning
|
2.60
|
1.38
|
|
Meteor(s)
|
2.63
|
1.25
|
|
Meteorite(s)
|
2.69
|
0.88
|
|
Asteroid(s)
|
2.69
|
1.06
|
|
Cloud(s)
|
2.71
|
0.63
|
|
Contrail(s)
|
2.80
|
1.31
|
|
Aurora
|
2.86
|
0.75
|
|
The primary purpose for administering this survey was to find out what visual
phenomena our advisors felt we should focus on in future theoretical studies in order to provide needed informational
preparation for our field studies. A score of 3 indicated that the advisor felt that that particular phenomenon should be of
immediate concern to NARCAP, a score of 2 indicated it is
of interest but of lower importance, and a score of 1 indicated that only later might NARCAP investigate it. We are, therefore,
interested primarily with phenomenon having mean scores between about one and one-half to three (cf. Table 4). Note here,
that there tended to be greater divergence of opinion in the lower mean scored items as indicated the larger standard deviation
values.
Table 4
Rank ordered Visual Phenomena from Table 2.
|
|
Mean
|
SD
|
|
|
Unidentified Aerial Phen.
|
2.61
|
0.96
|
|
Noctural Lights
|
2.54
|
0.88
|
|
Earthquake Lights
|
2.21
|
1.12
|
|
Chem Trails
|
1.93
|
0.96
|
|
Space Flashes
|
1.88
|
1.13
|
|
Foo Fighters
|
1.83
|
1.12
|
|
Sky Flashes
|
1.70
|
1.16
|
|
Volcanic Lights
|
1.55
|
1.21
|
|
Mirages
|
1.53
|
1.25
|
|
As NARCAP makes clear on its website and all of its reference documents, we
take no public position on the origin or cause of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) in particular but desire to let the data
speak for themselves.
|
Return to Technical Reports Page
Return to Main Page
|
