Itufor11

Magazine Overview

This is a special issue of the "ITALIAN UFO REPORTER", Newsletter of the Italian Center for UFO Studies (C.I.S.U.), Issue No. 11, dated July 1989. The issue is dedicated to the papers presented by CISU members at the "Fifth London International UFO Congress", which was jointly sponsored by BUFORA, MUFON, and ICUR on July 14-16, 1989. The issue aims to share these papers with a wider audience, particularly foreign colleagues who could not attend.

The Italian Papers

The issue features two main papers from Italian ufologists:

1. "Italian UFO-Research in the Eighties" by Gian Paolo Grassino and Edoardo Russo:
This paper reviews Italy's UFO research over the past decade, summarizing main features and proposing a new way of understanding ufology and the role of ufologists in society.

2. "Information Quality - the ITACAT Example" by Maurizio Verga:
This paper focuses on the reliability of data in close encounter reports, using the ITACAT catalogue as a case study to question the quality of even the best documented phenomena.

Italian UFO-Research in the Eighties: A Review of Sightings, Activities and Reflections (Paper 1)

This paper, presented by Gian Paolo Grassino and Edoardo Russo of CISU, provides a comprehensive overview of Italian ufology during the 1980s. It begins by referencing the 1979 London Congress where Italian ufology and the 1978 UFO wave were discussed.

Italian UFOLOGY TODAY

The 1980s saw a significant crisis in Italian ufology. While the 1970s had hundreds of local UFO groups, by the end of the decade, most had disbanded or become branches of the national organization, Centro Ufologico Nazionale (C.U.N.). C.U.N.'s journal, "Notiziario UFO", had a national distribution and around 8,000 readers between 1978 and 1980. However, a lack of sightings after 1980 reduced the number of active ufologists to about 100. This led to opposing views on research priorities.

In late 1985, internal polemics caused a split within C.U.N. Most active members left to form the Italian Center for UFO Studies (C.I.S.U.), which successfully reorganized Italian ufology. In its four years of existence, CISU became very active, contrasting with C.U.N.'s virtual disappearance. CISU has approximately 200 members, with an active core of about 40, focusing on field investigation, data collection, and filing.

• CISU emphasizes circulating information through an "open" data bank (offering photocopies of filed documents) and specialized publications, including:
• "UFO Information Review" (bi-annual journal distributed nationally).
• A quarterly bulletin for associates.
• A quarterly "case histories" newsletter.
• A bimonthly "newsclipping service".
• Occasional monographs.

• CISU also operates two "UFO hotlines" in Turin and Rome and a UFO Bulletin Board System. Computerization is widespread among ufologists. CISU has undertaken about a dozen specialized research projects, including:
• Regional Catalogues and Files of UFO/IFO reports (collecting 10,000 reports).
• "ITACAT", the national catalogue of close encounter reports.
• "Project Italy 3", concerning Italian humanoid sightings.
• "Operation Origins", a library search of early newspaper coverage (1946-1954).

CISU maintains no corporate opinion, promoting a scientific approach and including "intellectual" and skeptical ufologists. In 1987, a Gallup poll commissioned by CISU indicated that belief in UFOs' existence had decreased among Italians compared to ten years prior, though 6% of adult Italians claimed to have seen a UFO.

The Official Side

Following the 1978 UFO wave, the Italian Air Force established a UFO office in 1979. In 1984, they released photos of a military pilot's sighting, claiming it was a toy-balloon. In 1986, a listing of collected reports since 1979 was released. However, the paper argues that the Italian military forces have never shown real interest in UFOs, merely collecting and filing reports from pilots, police, or the press without proper investigation. CISU claims to have collected ten times the number of sightings admitted by the Ministry.

UFO/IFO Reports

The number of sighting reports in Italy collapsed in the early '80s, dropping to less than 100 per year, with only 23 reported in 1982 (the lowest in 25 years). This global decline in sightings contributed to the crisis in Italian ufology. However, unlike many foreign countries, Italy saw a resurgence of UFOs starting in 1983, with hundreds of sightings in 1985. The situation has since stabilized at around 100 reports per year, far below the '70s peaks.

The '80s saw fewer "good" cases, with most sightings being low-definition nocturnal lights. The paper presents examples of investigated reports:

• June 1982, Volpago (near Venice): A chicken breeder witnessed a dark object with red spirals hovering above an electrical box, causing a temperature drop in a nearby shed.
• June 1, 1985, near Brescia: A ground mark with converging stripes and greyish powder was found. Analysis suggested it was caused by a lightning strike.
• September 19, 1988, near Verona: Three burned circles were found in a field, identified as traces made by burning grass with solvents.

Humanoid Reports

One notable case from 1984, at Prata Principato (near Naples), involved a peasant encountering a 4-foot tall, hairy entity with a helmet and stick.

The Flaps

Occasional "flaps" (periods of widespread sightings) were common. Examples include:

• June 6, 1983: A cigar-shaped object with lighted portholes was seen across Italy, identified as a bright meteor.
• September 15, 1985: A white circular light hovered over Piedmont for hours, filmed by national TV, and later identified as a French weather balloon.
• March 21, 1989: Thousands witnessed an explosion in the sky, a speeding bright object, and a spiral shape falling back. This was explained as a military missile launch from Biscarosse, France.

Some Reflections on IFO Reports: Studying the Flaps (Continued from Paper 1)

The paper distinguishes between "individual IFOs" (common misidentifications) and "collective IFOs" (flaps). It argues that studying flaps is more fruitful as it allows for statistical analysis of numerous testimonies. By analyzing average data (time, shape, color, path), ufologists can establish what was likely present and measure how anomalous the "strangest" reports are compared to the average. The paper critiques the traditional ufologist approach of discarding average data to focus only on the most unusual reports.

Witness reliability is re-evaluated, suggesting that human witnesses are generally accurate. However, "unconfirmed individual" sightings may be more suspect, potentially arising from subjective factors or misidentifications of ordinary objects like Venus. The paper emphasizes the importance of context and statistical analysis for evaluating reports.

Some Reflections on UFOLOGY TODAY (Continued from Paper 1)

Ufologists are questioned about their focus on IFOs. The paper argues that IFOs are crucial because ufologists are the ones who differentiate them from UFOs. Many phenomena reported as UFOs (meteors, weather balloons, satellite re-entries, missile launches) are actually IFOs. Ufologists possess the inter-disciplinary competence to identify these phenomena, effectively becoming general experts on sky phenomena and taking on a "social role" in providing answers.

The paper concludes that while UFOs might be the "mystery of the century," ufology is a scientific no man's land. Ufologists are covering an intellectual region others neglect. Identifying IFOs is not just a byproduct but has intrinsic interest, contributing to knowledge and potentially solving parts of the mystery. The focus should be on accepting partial answers and viewing ufology as day-by-day work yielding day-by-day results, rather than solely seeking a definitive "Final Answer."

Information Quality: The ITACAT Example (Paper 2)

This paper by Maurizio Verga of CISU discusses the quality of documentation for UFO cases, using the "Italian Catalogue of Type-1 Reports" (ITACAT) as an example. Verga notes that even the best-documented phenomena are often based on scarce and unreliable information.

ITACAT, started in 1977, is a comprehensive collection of Italian close encounter cases, inspired by Peter Rogerson's INTCAT. The initial 400-page manuscript was published in 1985. The ITACAT monograph, published by CISU, includes about 430 cases from 1912 to 1984. It features a presentation of the work, including methodology, bibliographies, abstracts of cases, and comments on the quality of each case, its sources, investigation, witness accounts, and evaluation of possible explanations.

Verga acknowledges that his work is limited by personal judgment but states that establishing a panel of researchers was not feasible. He developed evaluation labels to assess case quality and identification, which can be combined. The paper implies that a critical examination of data quality is essential for advancing ufology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly emphasizes the importance of rigorous research, data collection, and critical analysis within ufology. It highlights the role of CISU in professionalizing and reorganizing Italian ufology in the 1980s, moving away from a crisis period. A key theme is the distinction between UFOs and IFOs, with a focus on the scientific identification of misidentified phenomena. The papers advocate for a more realistic, day-by-day approach to ufology, valuing partial answers and the process of investigation over the sole pursuit of a definitive solution to the UFO mystery. The editorial stance is one of scientific inquiry, data-driven analysis, and a commitment to advancing the field through meticulous research and public education.

This issue of the magazine, identified as issue 11 and published by C.I.S.U., focuses on a critical analysis of UFO case data, specifically the ITACAT sample. The content is primarily in English, with no explicit date or volume information provided on the scanned pages. The central theme revolves around the quality of information in UFO research and the methodology for evaluating cases.

Case Classification and Definitions

The article begins by defining several labels used to classify UFO cases:

• UNRELIABLE: Cases where the source is completely unreliable for serious use, requiring investigation by balanced and expert investigators for a comprehensive report. Cases not labeled 'unreliable' offer better information quality but do not guarantee an unexplained phenomenon.
• SEEMINGLY UNEXPLAINED: Cases that appear to have no well-known explanation and possess high information quality, considered the best UFO cases. However, the author notes that many of these can be explained over time with additional details.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Cases where available information allows for a proposed explanation.
• PROBABLE EXPLANATION: Cases where interpretation by conventional arguments is probable or nearly sure, though investigations may lack checks to confirm these identifications.

The issue also addresses the definition of 'close encounter,' noting confusion among researchers. The author proposes a definition: "Any experience where the witness states the sighting of a phenomenon at less than 30 meters of altitude and associated to the common idea of UFO by himself or other people." While acknowledging a dislike for the altitude limit, it was accepted for historical compatibility.

Analysis of the ITACAT Sample

The ITACAT file is described as a vast collection of stories related to UFOs, ranging from simple rumors to detailed investigation reports and newsclippings. The challenge lies in cataloging everything due to the unknown nature of what is being sought.

Case Distribution by Close Encounter (C.E.) Level

As of the present, nearly 500 cases have been collected and distributed as follows:

• 50.8% C.E. 0 (without any effect)
• 15.2% C.E. 1 (temporaneous effects, like E.M. and physiological)
• 13.0% C.E. 2 (physical traces and other permanent effects)
• 19.5% C.E. 3 (entity cases)
• 1.5% C.E. 4 (abductions)

The author notes that these percentages are not exact, as some cases with temporary or physical effects might be categorized higher. This limitation affects the clear distribution of different case types.

High-Strangeness Cases and Abductions

'High-strangeness cases' constitute about one-third of the file. Abductions are rare in the Italian UFO scene, with only five events documented, one of which is relatively well-documented.

Yearly Distribution and Peak Periods

The yearly distribution shows a significant peak in the late 1970s, particularly in 1978, with over 110 close encounters. Suspected factors include:

1. The effect of the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
2. Unusual media coverage of an artificial satellite re-entry, which led to sightings attributed to oil research activities.
3. The socio-psychological situation in Italy in 1978, a year marked by red terrorism, where UFO coverage might have served as an unconscious reaction to reduce tension.
4. The cultural trend of the 1970s, where occult and mysterious matters were fashionable.

This peak in 1978 was part of a wave that started in 1973 and ended in 1979. Following this, a "dark age" for Italian ufology occurred, with decreased interest and fewer sightings.

Another notable peak occurred in 1954, linked to a significant wave of UFO activity in Italy. This year also had the highest percentage of C.E. 3 cases (18 out of 39 recorded).

Factors Influencing Nighttime Sightings

The phenomenon's nightly attitude is confirmed, attributed to visual observations being more prone to distortion at night. Darkness can induce a special emotional and psychological state in witnesses, biasing their reporting abilities.

Research Methodology and Information Quality

The author expresses skepticism about the value of analyzing cases based solely on newsclippings and processing hypotheses from such data. The article stresses the importance of information quality, arguing that it is not serious to analyze cases based on unchecked sources like press, rumors, or unverified reports.

The Problem of Unchecked Sources

Most UFO stories originate from uncontrolled sources, making it difficult to evaluate their reliability. The author emphasizes that a significant portion of the ITACAT file is based on such sources, leading to a scarcity of basic data even in investigation reports. This explains the large number of cases labeled "Insufficient Information" and "Unreliable."

Consequences of Information Loss

Loss of information leads to two main consequences:

• Mis-knowledge or no knowledge about details that could explain the phenomena.
• Collection of only usual witness tale details, lacking elements to judge the case beyond a "simple story."

Source Control and Reliability

The control over the source is crucial for information quality. Identifying the producer of a case (journalist, witness, rumor, UFO fan, or investigator) is vital. The author notes that for many Italian cases, this detail is unknown due to scarce and confused news. The weight of a well-investigated case differs significantly from a newsclipping-generated event due to alleged reliability.

Types of Available Sources

Four types of sources were considered for analysis:

• PRESS (newspapers and magazines)
• INVESTIGATION (reports by ufologists or others)
• DIRECT REPORT (tales supplied by the witness)
• OTHERS (letters, rumors, unreferenced books)

The analysis shows that many cases originate from ufologists, but this does not guarantee quality, as many investigation reports are poorly documented. Most available cases come from unchecked sources.

Number of Sources

More than 80% of the ITACAT file originates from a single source. Well-documented cases, often with three or more sources, represent a small fraction but offer better quality.

Time of Source Release

The time lapse between an event's occurrence and its communication to someone is a critical parameter. Interviews conducted long after an event may not supply reliable information. More than half of ITACAT entries were released after one month or more of their occurrence, suggesting they are not based on "fresh" tales.

Cases and Sources Comparison

Most sources have been located after 1972, coinciding with the increased interest in ufology during the 1970s and the rise of local UFO groups in Italy. The first real investigation was in 1966, with inquiry activity becoming common only after 1972. This demonstrates a proportional link between public and media interest and the number of disclosed UFO cases.

Evaluation of ITACAT Events

The evaluation of ITACAT events is based on the quantity and quality of documentation and suggested interpretations. The results are described as "depressing":

• Four-fifths of the file have few and unreliable information, grounded on newsclippings, rumors, and low-quality investigations.
• Another 3.2% has insufficient details.
• Nearly 5% offer enough details but are unreliable.
• 8% of cases could be hoaxes.
• Less than 1% are classified as "Apparently Unexplained."

The author believes that even a less drastic evaluation would yield similar results.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly advocates for a rigorous approach to UFO research, emphasizing the critical importance of information quality and source reliability. The editorial stance is that a scientific dimension for UFO studies can only be achieved through a "checked concrete base." The author expresses concern that the myth of UFOs and the dilettantism of many ufologists contribute to the proliferation of unchecked sources and low-quality information, creating a cycle that perpetuates the myth. The article suggests that while many witnesses may report genuine sightings of anomalous aerial phenomena, the lack of reliable data means that the phenomenon is primarily understood as a social construct based on tales rather than concrete evidence. The author concludes by suggesting that focusing on high-quality reports and establishing clear standards for information quality is essential for serious scientific inquiry into the UFO phenomenon.

This document is a single page from a publication, featuring a pie chart titled "EVALUATION OF CASES" from an "ITACAT Sample". The page focuses entirely on the statistical breakdown of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) cases based on various classification criteria.

Case Evaluation Pie Chart The central element is a pie chart illustrating the distribution of UAP cases within the ITACAT Sample. The chart provides a visual representation of how different categories of case evaluations are weighted. The categories and their corresponding percentages are:

• INS/UNRE. (82.6%): This is the largest segment, indicating that the majority of cases are classified as Insufficient data or Unresolved.
• POSS. HOAX (8.1%): A significant portion of cases are considered possibly hoaxes.
• UNRE. (4.9%): Cases that remain unresolved, without further classification.
• INS./POSS. (1.6%): Cases where data is insufficient, but the possibility of a genuine phenomenon exists.
• INS. (1.0%): Cases with insufficient data.
• A.UN. (0.8%): Cases that are apparently unidentified.
• INS./PROB. (0.6%): Cases with insufficient data but a probable explanation or characteristic.
• PROB. (0.2%): Cases considered probable.
• POSS. (0.2%): Cases considered possible.

The chart is labeled "ITACAT Sample" and the categories are presented with their percentages, offering a quantitative overview of the challenges and outcomes in UAP case analysis.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The document's sole focus is on the statistical classification of UAP cases. It suggests an analytical and data-driven approach to understanding UAP phenomena, highlighting the significant number of cases that lack sufficient information or remain unresolved. The editorial stance, as inferred from this page, is one of systematic evaluation and categorization of UAP reports, emphasizing the difficulties in definitively classifying many sightings due to data limitations or potential misidentifications.