by Mark Cashman
mcashman@ix.netcom.com

Introduction
A good classification system should naturally delimit categories of the subject under study. In astronomy, galactic classification systems are largely based on geometry and special aspects of each galaxy. In biology, classification systems are supposed to resemble as closely as possible the evolutionary relationship between organisms.

This is particularly important in a field such as the study of UFOs. In this field, we desperately need good categories to help us see patterns in the observation which may be obscured by the sheer volume of the data.

Only a few serious UFO classification systems have been advanced. Many classification systems have concerned the geometry of the objects, and have ended up as laundry lists of observed shapes.

The most important UFO classification system was also one of the first. Jacques Vallee's original classification system was a behavioral classification which largely stayed away from issues of geometry except where those were closely tied to behavior.

The most widely used UFO classification system is also one of the least useful for discerning patterns in the data. J. Allen Hynek's system was designed to classify UFO reports, rather than UFOs. Thus, its sole contribution is to distinguish between apparent proximity of the object, the time of day of the sighting, the presence of traces, or the use of instrumentation.

Vallee later attempted to merge his original system with Hynek's system, and, at the same time, to make it symmetrical - in the sense that every major category had the same minor categories. Unfortunately, the result was not an improvement on his first effort, and, in fact, the original categories, which needed extending, were, to some extent, obscured by the incorporation of the Hynek categories.

A New System
Sufficient catalogs and literature exist to distinguish the limited repertoire of UFO behaviors. In fact, what is fascinating is that these behaviors fit into a set of categories which at least appear to represent intelligent actions, and which are certainly limited.

This classification system is an "event" oriented system. In other words, it should be used to classify a UFO event or a portion of an event, rather than an object.

A good classification system should be one where it is easy to decide which category best represents an event. Also, it should be rare than an event crosses categories or falls into multiple categories. To the extent possible, these categories have been based on example cases, and are inclusive of object / occupant behavior from arrival to departure. However, a significant population of cases falling between or into multiple categories should signal the need for a new category inclusive of those behaviors. This system is a work in progress, so there are probably still a few of these problems lurking in the wings.

The System
The cases used are examples, not exemplars. There are probably cases which even better illustrate some of the types. However, these examples will help you understand the system better, perhaps, than "perfect" cases.

TypeBehaviorExamplesBus Hovers and emits or accepts secondary objects.12/6/52 Gulf Of Mexico, 100 mi south of Louisiana coast, end of event

LoitererHangs above a particular geographic area, usually populated, for an extended period. Often returns on subsequent days or years to the same geographic area. Sometimes acts as a bus (see below), usually for red balls. Sometimes seen to depart rapidly, often moves erratically over an area; sometimes several objects of the same general type seem to be involved in the sightings of a particular day.1983-84 Hudson Valley, NY / CTStalkerSingle object follows a vehicle or individual. Often harrasses with close flight approaches. May initiate hostile action.10/12/63 between Monte Maiz and Isla Verde, Argentina

8/24/67 between Melbourne and Sydney, Aust.GangOne or more objects / occupants perform unprovoked harassment of people in their homes or on the road.12/21/57 near Ponta Poran, Brazil Roadblock Lands on or near road and often interferes with the operation of witness motor vehicle

11/2/57 Levelland TX Tourist Hovers near home or facility observing, with no apparent concern about being observed, may land and occupants may gather souveniers. Occupants may approach witness and seem to make recording or occupants appear to make comments on witness to each other.10/68 Lakeland FL

9/3/65 Exeter, NH SpyObject appears to be engaged in clandestine surveillance (Like tourist but leaves quickly with apparent concern at noticing witness). Occupant may peek in window or doors.

1/1/70 Cowichan, Vancouver Isl., Canada Teaser Like a tourist but seems to be probing for a reaction from a facility, usually military, or a vehicle (usually police), or an aircraft (usually military). May allow chase, but always eludes pursuit. Sometimes appears to wait for pursuer to catch up, or even comes back to encourage pursuit.10/28/75 Loring AFB, Maine Breakdown Object appears to be malfunctioning (smoke, noise, unusually erratic flight path / apparent emergency landing), or object / occupants seem to be engaged in repairs.6/2/64 Hobbs, NM

1/24/68 Indiana, PARendezvous Hovers waiting for one or more other objects. All objects fly away after rendezvous. Occupants may switch objects. Object may engage in stalking of aircraft which enter the rendezvous area, and may make use of defensive force. A "bus" may be associated with the rendezvous area.

7/16/52 Hampton, VAKidnapper Abducts or attempts to abduct witness.

12/10/54 Trans-Andean Highway, Venezuela Attacker Initiates hostile action with no apparent stalking period.

10/3/73 driving in Southwest Missouri Busy Engaged in activity with apparent indifference or unawareness regarding witnesses. However, may react with defensive force to close approach by witness.3/15/65 Everglades, FL

10/21/63 Trancas, Argentina RubberneckBusy, but detours from course or backtracks to observe vehicle, persons, or event.

12/6/52 Gulf Of Mexico, 100 mi south of Louisiana coast, one flight of objects early part of sightingDiverEnters / leaves a body of water.

6/17/1909 Dong Hoi, Annam (Tonkin?) Swimmer Moves through water.

7/20/67 120 mi off Cape Santa Maria Grande, BrazilDrop-InArrives, lands / hovers, almost immediately departs.7/13/59 Blenheim, NZCase Attributes

This part of the classification system incorporates the best of the Hynek and new Vallee systems. Every event has at least one of these attributes, and may have more than one.

Identifier Attributevisual Visualinst Instrumented (radar, photo, etc.) trace Physical Traceoccupant Occupants Seentime Memory Lossmedical Physiological Effects (heat, burns) emEM Effectsforce Push/pull/levitatesound Soundloud Loud sound (roaring) animal Animal reactions freeze Witness paralysed with no lasting effect Proximity

This part of the classification system incorporates the distance criteria of Hynek's classification system. This is the minimum distance for the event.

IDValuetouch Physical contact or entry beside1-50'near 50 to 300' middle300' to "miles" farDistant / unknownExamples

Here are the examples, classified in detail:

Examples Type Attribute Proximity 1983-84 Hudson Valley, NY / CTLoiterervisualmiddle/far
10/12/63 between Monte Maiz and Isla Verde, Argentina Stalkervisual/occupant/medical beside

8/24/67 between Melbourne and Sydney, Aust.Stalkervisual/occupantnear

12/21/57 near Ponta Poran, BrazilGangvisual/emnear1

1/2/57 Levelland TX Roadblockvisual/emnear/middle

10/68 Lakeland FLTouristvisual/occupant/emnear

9/3/65 Exeter, NHTouristvisualnear

1/1/70 Cowichan, Vancouver Isl., Canada Spy visual/occupant middle

10/28/75 Loring AFB, MaineTeaservisual/instmiddle

6/2/64 Hobbs, NMBreakdownvisual/medicalbeside

1/24/68 Indiana, PABreakdownvisual/occupantmiddle

7/16/52 Hampton, VARendezvousvisualfar

12/6/52 Gulf Of Mexico, 100 mi south of Louisiana coastBus/Rubberneck visual/instmiddle/far

12/10/54 Trans-Andean Highway, Venezuela Kidnappervisual/occupant/medicaltouch10/3/73 driving in Southwest MissouriAttackervisual/medicalbeside

3/15/65 Everglades, FLBusyvisual/medicalbeside

10/21/63 - Trancas, ArgentinaBusyvisual/medicalbeside/near

6/17/1909 Dong Hoi, Annam (Tonkin?)Divervisualfar

7/20/67 120 mi off Cape Santa Maria Grande, Brazil Swimmer visual near

7/13/59 Blenheim, NZDrop-Invisual/medicalnear

Conclusion
This classification system is based on observable characteristics of UFO incidents and can help significantly in elucidating patterns, particularly from catalogs, where the full account may be too bulky for inclusion. It reduces the shortcomings of the Hynek and Vallee classifications, while using the best from each, and yet remains sufficiently simple and memorable as to be accessible to those producing and using catalogs.

The author is a Director of Software Development, an independent researcher, a member of MUFON (Connecticut), an Associate of CUFOS, and custodian of the Project 1947 Electromagnetic Effects from UFOs Catalog. The results of his other research can be found at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufo.htm


 Anatomy of a Phenomenon, Jacques Vallee, LC#65-19161 and Challenge To Science, Jacques and Janine Vallee, ISBN 0-345-27086-X
 The UFO Experience, J. Allen Hynek, ISBN 0-345-27361-3
 Confrontations, Jacques Vallee, ISBN 0-345-36501-1