Introduction

Some UAP databases [Refs. 50, 96, 26] have been examined in order to attempt to verify both qualitatively and quantitatively how and if this source of information is useful or not to a scientific factorization of the issue. This analysis regarded witness data from January 1949 to July 2009 concerning UAP sightings reported in the following three North-American confining areas: the Ontario province in Canada and the New York and Connecticut states in USA. Many hundreds of “data points” have been used to build up several charts [Ref. 18], where the data of the three areas are compared together, in order to search for a possibly similar trend and correlations that might be useful to understand a bit more on the UAP phenomenon as a whole. There is not really a special reason why these three areas (instead of others) have been chosen for thorough examination: they were just considered a quite well statistically represented sample and, consequently, a presumably suitable way to test if, how and how much testimonial cases concerning the "UAP phenomenon" can be effectively subject to some form of scientific analysis. The author of this work is not an ufologist [see CV at the end], but a scientific scholar who is interested in the problem and similar phenomena such as "earthlights" since a long time [Refs. 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 88]. Therefore this investigation is not devoted to the study of single, more or less allegedly prominent, UAP incidents; in fact such individual cases demand very often a “police-like” investigative effort as it happens normally when well-dedicated ufologists investigate a given witness case [Refs. 8, 9, 23, 36, 42, 44, 46, 64, 89].

One of these three areas, the Ontario one, is quite well known to this author, who has kept track during many years for the sky-watching efforts carried out since 1997 by Project Orbwatch on the Ontario Lake shore [Refs. 10, 31]. The primary intent here was to make a preliminary wider study of the entire Ontario area in preparation of an instrumented mission on site, which has been then effectively carried out in Jul-Aug 2009. The results of this mission will be described in the last chapter of this paper. Clearly a preliminary statistical study of the Ontario cases was also very suitable for a comparison with the confining New York and Connecticut US states. NY and CT states are in themselves quite interesting as “potential UAP areas”, the first one due in particular to the well- investigated cases in the Hudson Valley [Refs. 28, 26], which is confining with the CT state, where very recent sightings were effectively reported in March 2009 [Ref. 9]. This introductory work on databases, in addition to its possible utility for the preparation of the mission to Ontario, was then expected to furnish some insights on the UAP phenomenon as a whole. In fact a thorough study of the UAP phenomenon could be carried out by comparing together well statistically populated databases. This opportunity was promptly caught. The attempt and the consequent result was just a “test” to see if some additional “UAP science” can be extracted from databases [Refs. 62, 90]. After all the procedural techniques used in this specific context are not so different, in principle, than the ones employed by an astronomer who tries to derive the laws of stellar structure and evolution by analyzing statistically a large sample of stars [Ref. 24], such as in the case, for instance, of the overpopulated globular clusters. Or, to make another example, I could also mention the approach used by astronomers when, using stellar statistics, they intend to study the structure of a galaxy by analyzing all the most relevant physical parameters (such as spectral type, colour index, absolute luminosity, radial velocity, proper motion, mass, density) characterizing all the stars that compose it. In few words, the intent here is to try to understand something general by analyzing all-together a large sample of data points.

Really, the attempt to apply this philosophy of approach to the case of UAP databases was mostly intended to verify if a witness case can be effectively used as a scientific datum or not. Certainly there was no presumption here to really derive physical laws of UAPs from databases cataloguing them. This (quite much time wasting effort) has been a pure and simple test to see how the information coming from this source may furnish some evidence on the reality and, in case, nature of the phenomenon itself. As it will be seen in the next pages the results emerging from this analysis show pretty well that when a scholar embarks in such an ambitious initiative he must be prepared to obtain a ratio * results / work done * that is less than one, even if not zero The same consideration is valid also for the on-site investigation (using measurement instrumentation), when, instead of monitoring areas where really a recurrent light phenomenon occurs [Refs. 1, 4, 14, 16, 34, 37, 54, 57, 58, 61, 69, 70, 99], a researcher carries out sky-watching operations at locations where UAP cases have been reported at several stages in the – more or less recent – past but not exactly in a spatially recurrent way. Reoccurring anomalous light phenomena, such as the Hessdalen one in Norway [Ref. 69] and UAPs seem to be two quite different stuffs. Despite the fact that both phenomena may occasionally overlap together in the same area, the so called Hessdalen-like “earthlights” [Refs. 30, 51, 54] offer a quite high probability to be observed and studied, while UAP cases – namely: mostly structured aerial phenomena – are a totally random and elusive phenomenon, even if it occasionally occurs in the form of “flaps” [Refs. 2, 8, 44, 46, 89]. In general, the fact that UAPs have been reported many times at a given location doesn’t mean at all that such a manifestation is more or less constantly localized there. But also this – doing a field-mission to one of the areas that were previously studied on databases – was another test to see what happens when someone is just on the field.

So, this paper is divided into two parts. The first much more extensive part deals with the examination of some selected high-quality databases. The second more specialized part deals with the results of the mission to several locations belonging to one of these three big areas – the Ontario province of Canada – which was also motivated by some evidence of “phenomenon recurrence” in the past years [Ref. 31].

Figure 0 - Some photographic examples of “structured UAPs” that can be found in Internet. Some of these cases might be surely hoaxes, but they all give a quite good idea of what people claims to effectively sight according to UAP databases. Here mostly geometric shapes are shown because this paper is mostly aimed at studying these typologies. The geometry can be inferred either by the intrinsic shape of the object or by the way in which the illumination system is disposed over it [two References here: 94, 95].

Let’s give now a summary of the content of Part 1. The study presented here regards both temporal and spatial distribution of reported UAP events, a comparative study of the reported typology, correlation analyses and the search for possible connections with geophysical and astronomical parameters. Search for correlation with the population number and the technological evolution of communication media has been done as well. I am now quite well confident that in this specific case a sufficient amount of data has been examined and that the most relevant variables therein (when available) have been weighed as accurately as possible. In order to furnish in some detail a short conceptual snapshot of what has been done, I anticipate here a succinct list of the statistical and graphical/numerical studies that have been carried out in this specific part of the study:

1. Number of UAP Cases vs. Time (overall and month by month), Month and Year;
2. Number of UAP Cases vs. Shape;
3. Time and Duration vs. Julian Date;
   
4. Low, medium and high-resolution Latitude-Longitude charts where UAP incidents were reported to occur;
   
5. Town Population Number vs. Number of UAP Cases, and consequent statistical selection of the towns (of whatever dimension) that were intrinsically more involved by the phenomenon independently from population number;
   
6. Identification of spatially clustered areas where the UAP phenomenon has been reported to occur.
   
7. Google Earth and World Wind geographic checks and exact localization of all the spots where UAP cases have been spatially plotted;
   
8. Correlation analyses, using both linear and polynomial fits, of all the plotted parameters for the three considered areas.
   
9. Correlation analysis between Moon phase and Moon height at the times of the sightings of structured objects.
   
10. Correlation analysis between the Number of Yearly UAP Cases and the evolution of technology in communication systems (cell phones).
    
11. Correlation analysis between the Number of Yearly UAP Cases and the Local Geomagnetic Field Intensity, Solar Activity, Magnetic Anomaly Zones and Gravimetric Anomaly Zones.
    
12. A study of incidence of UAP Cases with Astronomical Conjunctions.
    
13. General post-processing data analysis and detailed critical discussion of results.
    
14. Localization of the most important target-areas and preparation of a sky-watching plan using specifically chosen instruments in order to attempt to identify, measure, and test the phenomenon that might be in case in sight.

I need to anticipate that, although all the relevant witness data have been taken into account in order to prepare tables and graphs, a particular interest has been devoted to allegedly “geometrically structured” UAP cases (see Fig. 0).

Part II of this paper will mostly regard the description and discussion of the apparent anomalies recorded – during the mission to Ontario – using a VLF-ELF spectrometer and of a visual sighting having apparent anomalous characteristics.