Sign Historical Group


To: UFO Early Warning Coordinators June 20, 1967
From: DR Saunders (CU, 202 Woodbury Hall)  
Subject: Initial guidelines for telephone reporting  

Your responses to my letter of May 31 have been, both individually and collectively, most gratifying. Some 90 percent of Dick Hall's nominees have indicated not merely willingness, but eagerness to go ahead. We will. The purposes of this memorandum are to let you know (1) how and (2) when to call. I will try to respond to your more specific comments in individual letters soon, but want to get this in the mail to all of you even sooner. If you find yourself in need either of more guidelines or more closure on any point, please treat this as a legitimate reason for calling me on the telephone as per the procedure following.

1) How to call is very, simple. Just pick up the telephone and call one of the following numbers collect, trying us in the order shown:

    (303) 443-2211 Ext 6762 -- Monday through Friday, 0830-1700.
    (303) 444-4806 -- Person-to-person for Dave Saunders -- anytime.
    (303) 442-2488 -- Person-to-person for Bob Low -- anytime.
    (303) 442-7437 -- Person-to-person for Mary Lou Armstrong -- anytime.
    (303) 442-8921 -- Person-to-person for Jim Wadsworth - anytime.

It Is possible, if the number of calls increases much above its present level, that I will install an unlisted number that you may call station-to-station, but the above arrangement seems beat for now. In placing these calls, please advise the operator to advise the intended recipient that this is a "NICAP UFO Report," so that we may advise her in turn how to bill the charges.

2) When to call is a little harder to define, and will depend in the end on your judgment. However, if you are In doubt, I would prefer for you to call rather than for you not to call. The entire purpose in inviting your call is so that we may have an opportunity to join you, and/or your associates, in an on-the-spot investigation of an important UFO sighting at the earliest possible time. While it is Inherently impossible to predict what sighting(s) will deserve the highest priority for our investigation on any given day, we do expect that there will be times when even the "lowest" priority sightings will stand at the top of the list!

Attachments 1 and 2 to this memorandum are intended to give you some idea as to how we expect to determine priorities for investigation. Adapting suggestions made to us by Dr. Allen Hynek, it seems feasible to classify sightng reports both as to the quality of the evidence they afford (or potentially afford) and as to the quality of the phenomenon they describe (or purport to describe). Attachment 1, categories A through E, will be used to define evidential quality in order of decreasing interest to the CU UFO Study. Similarly, Attachment 1, categories F through I, will be used to define phenomenal quality in order of decreasing interest to the CU UFO Study. On the basis of these definitions, Attachment 2 will suggest combinations of these categories that may or may not be of interest.

Page 2

Even Attachment 2 cannot be relied, upon blindly, however, because such factors as the number of witnesses, the duration of the sighting, the detail of the report, etc, etc are not fully reflected therein. In the end, so far as the CU Study Is concerned, I am responsible for decisions as to what to investigate in the way of sightings, and I am looking to you to give me as many choices as you think are even remotely reasonable.

One further point in this connection. I would prefer to hear from you immediately about a potentially Interesting sighting, rather than to wait for even a preliminary investigation on your part. I would rather cancel plane reservations than not have time to make them. I would rather postpone a postponable trip than miss out on something of current importance.

Attachment 3 is for your Information, and is a copy of the form into which we will be entering your initial report. As you will see, this need not restrict your report in any way, although It will help if you can provide the standardized data first, in the Indicated sequence.

3) Insofar as it is possible for me to do so, I would prefer to leave the matter of your local organization to your own discretion, on the basis of your own experience, situation, and knowledge of the other people involved. In some cases you may find. It feasible to assign certain areas to certain Individuals. In other cases, you may find it feasible to assign certain times to certain Individuals, to establish a local "radio watch." You may have still other ideas of how to achieve reliable, immediate coverage.

I would only ask that you Inform me precisely of two things: (a) the geographical area that you (with the help of your committee) can cover, so that I may try to fill the holes, and (b) the identity of any other persons who might call me in your behalf, so that I will not reject their calls.

4) Several of you have suggested the desirability of setting up some sort of a "ham" radio communication network vis-a-vis UFO's. This is not a bad idea but, fortunately, our project is not (yet) in a position requiring avoidance of the telephone, and the telephone does have clear advantages if you ignore its cost.

An Investigations-oriented UFO Classification

  1. Evidential Quality (Objectivity)

    1. Analyzable residues
      1. Wreckage
      2. Fragments
      3. Garbage
      4. Radioactivity or burn

    2. Recorded observation
      1. Advanced instrumentation
      2. Movies
      3. Still sequences
      4. Isolated pictures

    3. Instrumented observation
      1. Radar
      2. EM Effects
      3. Animal reactions
      4. Polarizer or grating
      5. Theodolite or telescope

    4. Visual observation
      1. Independent witnesses
      2. Multiple witnesses
      3. Exceptional witness
      4. Single witness

    5. Psychic observation
      1. Communication
      2. Prediction

  2. Phenomenal Quality (Strangeness)

    1. Correlations
      1. Responsivity
      2. Curiosity
      3. Maneuvering
      4. Pacing
      5. Chasing

    2. Transitions
      1. Rendezvous
      2. Landing
      3. Clouding
      4. Day-night
      5. Formations
      6. Motions

    3. Appearances
      1. Tracking
      2. Recurrence
      3. Sighting

    4. IFO's

DRS -- 6/19/67 (Rev)

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

   F   G   H   I 
+++ +++ + X
+++ +++ + X
+ + ? X
+ ? ??? X

+++ ---> We hope to investigate all such sightings.
+ ---> We expect to investigate a high proportion of these, when we hear about them in time.
? ---> We will investigate these only when nothing more Interesting is available.
??? ---> It will be very unusual for this category to be investigated, even though it does account for more sightings than any other.
X ---> We hope to avoid investigation of these sightings, as having little to contribute to our understanding of UFO's.

DRS - 6/20/67

Attachment 3





Direction Disappeared
# Visual Observers

# Objects



Other Features


Known Traffic

Observer --





Reporter --





Please fill in all possible blanks with relevant information. Use the back of this sheet for a running description of the event.

DRS - 6/6/67 (Rev)

BACK to Article | BACK to SHG Links