|
Weird
9 Webring
Please Vote for Weird 9!
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook
| | Dr Jacques Vallee Classification System
Another system that categorizes the various types of UFO invented by Dr
Jacques Vallee
and is now used more often instead of the Dr Hynek Classification System.
Close Encounter (CE) Rating
Note:
Close Encounter (CE) Rating quite similar to the Dr Hynek Close Encounter
ratings.
 | Close Encounters of the First Kind (CE1)
CE1 UFO comes within 500 feet of the witness
(i.e., more than 150 metres; approx. 152 m).
Seeing UFO either in the sky, above the sea or on the ground.
No contact is made.
There is no after effects suffered by the witness or the surrounding area.
| Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE2)
CE2 - A close encounter of UFO that leaves landing traces or injuries
to the witness.
Some examples:
Burn traces on ground/trees or
Materials found of unknown makeup or
Physical impairment on witness
| Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3)
Unknown entity or occupant was observed around or within the UFO.
| Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CE4)
The witness has been abducted by an alien or race.
The abductee usually taken on board into the UFO.
Suggested hypotheses:
Breeding experiment or
Genetic Engineering or
Medical Surgery e.g., inserting implant(s)
| Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (CE5)
A close encounter which either results in permanent psychological
injuries or death caused by alien or race.
Note:
The definition has not been universally agreed on.
Other definitions include Crash Retrievals and Direct (Deliberate)
Communication.
Fly-by (FB) Rating.
| Fly-by Rating One (FB1)
A simple sighting of UFO travelling in a straight line across the sky,
above sea or ground.
| Fly-by Rating Two (FB2)
A fly-by that accompanied by physical evidence.
| Fly-by Rating Three (FB3)
A fly-by where entities are observed on board (rare).
| Fly-by Rating Four (FB4)
A fly-by where the witness experienced a transformation of reality into
the object or its occupants.
| Fly-by Rating Five (FB5)
A fly-by which the witness would suffer permanent injuries or even
death.
(i.e. CASH / LANDRUM CASE)
Manoeuvre(MA) Rating.
Notes:
MA Rating describes behaviour of a UFO.
It is analogous to Nocturnal Light, Daylight Disk and Radar Visual of the
Hynek Classifications.
| Manoeuvre Rating One (MA1)
UFO has been observed which travels in a discontinuous trajectory.
(i.e. vertical drops, manoeuvres or loops)
| Manoeuvre Rating Two (MA2)
A manoeuvre plus any physical effects caused by the UFO.
| Manoeuvre Rating Three (MA3)
A manoeuvre where entities are observed on board.
(i.e. the airship cases of the late nineteenth century.)
| Manoeuvre Rating Four (MA4)
A manoeuvre accompanied by a sense of reality transformation for the
observer.
| Manoeuvre Rating Five (MA5)
A manoeuvre that results in a permanent injury or death of the witness.
(S)ource Reliability, Site (V)isit & (P)ossible Explanations
(SVP) Rating
Notes:
SVP Rating is the all-important credibility rating.
"Marks" out of four are given for the three categories of Source
reliability (first digit), site Visit (second digit) and Possible explanations
(third digit).
Example: A rating of 222 or higher indicates the case was reported by a
reliable source, the site has been visited and a natural explanation would
require a major alteration of at least one parameter.
| Source Reliability Rating
0 Unknown or unreliable source.
1 Report attributed to a known source of unknown or uncalibrated reliability.
2 Reliable source, secondhand.
3 Reliable source, firsthand.
4 Firsthand personal interview with the witness by a source of proven
reliability.
| Site Visit Rating
0 No site visit, or answer unknown.
1 Site visit by a casual person not familiar with the phenomena.
2 Site visited by persons familiar with the phenomena.
3 Site visit by a reliable investigator with some experience.
4 Site visit by a skilled analyst.
| Possible Explanations Rating
0 Data consistent with one or more natural 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. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
