UFO CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

by
David Calvert

The Hynek UFO Classification System (HCS)

The first serious attempt at classifying UFOs came from the most influential figure in
ufology, Joseph Allen Hynek. A professor of Astronomy at North-western University,
US, Hynek was employed in 1948 by the US Air Force to investigate UFO reports. As
former head of Project Blue Book, he devised the following classification system,
which has long been the ‘industry standard’. He initially divided UFO reports
according to the distance from the observer - greater or less than 150 m. (500 ft.) - and
then further subdivided these two sections into a total of six categories

‘Long distance‘ sightings.

Nocturnal lights: Light or lights seen at a distance. These may display various
fluctuations in intensity, changes in colour and/or rapid acceleration, and sudden turns
or directional changes. They frequently turn out to be no more than misidentifications
of planets such as Venus or Jupiter, high altitude aircraft or meteors.

Daylight (diurnal) discs: Often seen at a distance, and varying considerably in

shape and size, may be disc, cigar or cylinder shaped, egg or acorn shaped (the former
usually seen on a horizontal axis, the latter on a vertical axis). They may be spherical,
ovate, irregular shapes or (as of late) large black triangles. They may or may not
exhibit similar patterns of behaviour to nocturnal lights. Often the result of
misidentified weather balloons, blimps, aircraft or even hoaxes.
Radar visuals: Witnessed as a radar reflection and as a visual sighting by an
independent observer. Stand-alone radar sightings are often written off due to the
nature of false traces caused by natural phenomena such as flocks of birds, ground
scatter (a reflected signal from high cloud), cloud banks and temperature inversions.
Relatively rare, but important, they may provide instrumental evidence to support the
visual aspect of the sighting.

Close range sightings:

CE1 (Close encounters of the first kind): Observations of phenomena with no

interaction between UFO and witness or environment.

CE II (Close encounter of the second kind): The witnessing of physical

effects on organic and non-organic, animate or inanimate objects. Such effects may
include the disruption of car engines or other radio or electrical interference (due to
the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effect on the electrical circuits, diesel engines are
not usually effected), broken tree limbs, scorched or flattened vegetation, imprints in
the ground, scorched or newly exposed earth, and increased radiation levels or
localised time anomalies.

CE III (Close encounters of the third kind): The witnessing of occupants in or

around the UFO. There is a bone of contention concerning these so-called ‘contactee
cases’. Hynek himself believed that such reports invariably came from pseudo-
religious fanatics, and sceptics to add weight to these arguments often quote cases
such as those of George Adamski, et al. To fully qualify for CE III status, the
occupants of the UFO should either be witnessed or have verbal or some other
communication with the witness. There may be displays of hostility by or towards the
extraterrestrial biological entity (EBE) or by remote devices.

CE IV (Close encounter of the fourth kind): Although this is not one of

Hynek’s classifications per se, it is included as a later addition to the above and
implies actual abduction by EBEs, in its literal sense of being abducted without the
witness’s consent and/or knowledge. These encounters frequently begin with a CE II
and the abductee may have no knowledge of the event until such time as regression
therapy becomes necessary due to subsequent emotional or psychological
disturbances.

The Valée Anomaly Classification System

Devised by Dr. Jacques Valée, a French-American graduate of Hynek’s astronomy

course at North-western University, this system is now more widely used than
Hynek’s system, as it is more specific for analytical purposes and narrows things
down somewhat. Valée divided UFO reports into the various sections detailed below.

AN ratings are used to classify anomalous behaviour.

AN 1: Anomalies which have no lasting physical effects, such as amorphous or

flashing lights, and unexplained explosions.

AN 2: Anomalies that do have lasting physical effects, such as poltergeists,

materialised objects, areas of flattened grass, scorched ground, broken or damaged
trees, crop circles, etc.

A 3: Anomalies that have entities associated with them, such as big foot, ghosts,
yetis, spirits, elves, goblins, or other such mythical or legendary entities.
A 4: Witness interaction with the AN 3 entities, including near-death experiences,
religious miracles and visions, out-of-body experiences (OOBEs).

A 5: Reports of anomalies in which there are injuries and deaths, including

spontaneous human combustion (SHC), unexplained wounds, or even ‘supernatural’
healing that may result from such an experience.

MA ratings are used to describe the behaviour of a UFO and are comparable with the
Nocturnal Light, Daylight Disc, and Radar-Visual Hynek classifications.

MA 1: A UFO has been observed which travels in a discontinuous trajectory - rapid

acceleration/deceleration, vertical climbs or drops, manoeuvres or loops.

MA 2: MA 1 plus any physical effects caused by the UFO as per AN 1 or AN 2.

MA 3: MA 1 plus any entities observed on board, e.g., the airship cases of the late
19th century.

MA 4: Manoeuvres that are accompanied by a sense of reality transformation for the

witness.

MA 5: Manoeuvres resulting in the permanent injury of death of the witness.

FB ratings are used to describe the fly-by of an anomalous craft or object.

FB 1: A straightforward sighting of a UFO travelling in a straight line across the sky.

FB 2: FB 1 accompanied by other physical evidence.

FB 3: A fly-by where crew, pilots or other entities are observed on board.

FB 4: A fly-by whereby the witness has experienced a transformation of reality into

the object or its occupants.

FB 5: A fly-by in which the witness suffers permanent injuries or even death.

CE ratings are used to describe close encounters, and are very similar to the Hynek
close encounter classifications.

CE 1: UFO comes to within 150 m. of the witness, but the witness or the surrounding
area suffers no after-effects.

CE 2: CE 1 that leaves landing traces, or temporary injuries to the witness.

CE 3: Entities have been observed on or within the UFO.

CE 4: The witness has undergone abduction.

CE 5: CE 3 that results in permanent psychological injuries to, or death of, the
witness.

The SVP rating system is an important rating of credibility. ‘Marks’ out of four are
awarded for the three categories of reliability (first number), site visit (second
number), and possible explanations (third number). For example, if a rating of 330
was awarded, it would imply that the witness was at first-hand and reliable, the site
was visited by a reliable investigator, but the sighting could be explained by natural or
mundane causes, thus:

Source reliability rating:

0: Unknown or unreliable source.

1: Report attributed to a source of unknown or unmeasured reliability.

2: Reliable source - second hand.

3: Reliable source - first hand.

4: First hand personal interview with the witness by a source of proven

reliability.

Site visit rating:

0: No site visits, or answer unknown.

1: Site visit by a person not familiar with the phenomena.

2: Site visit by a person or persons familiar with the phenomena.

3: Site visit by a reliable investigator (s) with some experience.

4: Site visit by skilled analyst (s).

Possible explanations rating:

0: Data consistent with one or more natural or mundane causes.

1: Natural explanation requires only slight modification of the data.

2: Natural explanation requires major alteration of one parameter.

3: Natural explanation requires major alteration of several parameters.

4: No natural explanation possible, given the evidence.

The above example of an Anomalous Object Flow Chart is taken from The UFO
Investigator’s Guide, by David Coomer. It is a simple and effective tool for any
would-be or professional UFO investigator

Should you be fortunate enough to experience your own UFO sighting or simply read
of someone else’s, why not analyse it for yourself using the methods outlined. Use
either the Hynek system or Valée system, or both, and see what results you get.